We are told from our youth that we have the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the latter being property. We know from sad experience that the right of life is under attack as we watch the increased rate in murders and manslaughter constantly rise. On the other hand, government in its benevolence has attacked the right to life by sanctioning and funding abortion.

Likewise, our right to liberty is constantly under attack by government and we can only exercise this right with its permission. I should explain that liberty includes the right to travel, and in this area two violations of our liberty come to mind:

1. We cannot buy and use an automobile without government's permission.

   I say this because if you do not have a driver's license or if you fail to register your vehicle, you will be charged with a crime and your vehicle is subject to being confiscated. You see a license is permission to do that which is otherwise illegal, which means that government views driving as being illegal without their permission. Therefore, the government has made the exercise of liberty a crime and impossible without their permission.

2. Another thing that comes to mind is the requiring of IRS clearance before you can be issued a passport. So if you are having troubles with the IRS, the government denies you the right to liberty.

Just as the rights to life and liberty are being attacked, likewise the right of property is also under attack. Of the three, that is life liberty, and property, most people probably relate to the erosion of their property rights more so than their rights of life and liberty.

Property rights, or the right in property, is the unconditioned right to own, use, and dispose of all forms of real and personal property. If anybody, to include government, conditions the exercise of the right to own, use, or dispose of property, then you do not have a right. Likewise if anybody, to include government, takes your property from you, denies you the use of your property, or conditions the use of your property, then it becomes a theft.

All of these things are basic property rights and the protection of these rights or loss thereof is covered under the eighth commandment which declares in Exodus 20:15: "Thou shalt not steal."

The eighth commandment is a very simple statement but it has an awfully large meaning. So what is stealing or theft? Well basically, theft or stealing is taking another man's property by coercion, fraud, or without his consent. It is not even necessary for the person robbed to know of the theft. Thus, to ride a train or bus without paying one's fare is theft, even though the company is unaware of the act. Other forms of theft include cheating, harming property, or destroying the value of property.

We normally think of a thief as someone who walks into a convenience store or a bank and takes money at gun point. We also view the robber who breaks into home and business as a thief, but there are other forms of theft as we shall see.

First of all, theft can be accomplished in a number of ways. First, there is simple theft in which a person robs the victim directly. This is illustrated in the convenience store robbery or when someone steals a woman's purse.

Secondly, a thief may rob the victim as part of a group of thieves. This is illustrated by the famous Brinks robbery. In such a case, a man may not be directly involved in the act of theft, but he is a party to it all the same, because he was a knowing party in the corporate group of thieves. A good example is the getaway driver. An example of this was the Powers woman who recently turned herself in as a getaway driver in a bank holdup back East in which a man was killed.

Now we come to the third form of theft. In this form, theft can be accomplished by indirect means, and by what is perceived as legal means, that is, by passing a law which steals from the rich, the poor, or the middle-classes, for the benefit of others.

When this is the case, the state becomes the agency whereby theft is accomplished, and a false moral smoke screen is given to the theft by alleged legal enactment of a law imposing a tax. However, every law that takes from any segment of society and gives it to another segment of society is a theft on the property of those paying the tax. In this instance, government becomes the thief as well as the recipient of the tax, and the recipient becomes the receiver of stolen property. All of our welfare schemes fit into this category.

In this regard, it is also interesting that the United States Supreme Court, at one time, understood that taxation was only levied with consent, and constituted tyranny when imposed by law in the case of welfare schemes. In a case entitled "Loan Assn v. Topeka," 22 U.S. 455, the court stated:

"To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals...is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation."

Now let's read that again, because I want to make you understand what the Supreme Court said. They said:

"To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals...is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation."

So the taking of property in the form of taxes and giving it to favored individuals, even though the legislature has enacted a law mandating the tax, is still robbery. What makes it a robbery is that the tax is not used to provide for the needs of government but to support or subsidize other individuals.

I mentioned that theft is not only the taking of another man's property against his will or by fraud, such as under the guise of taxation, but also the destruction of property, or the reducing in value of property, or prohibiting the use of property, by any willful act or even by accident, and I will give you a couple of examples.

Fraud is clearly a form of theft. A sale of an item based upon the claims of the seller, becomes a theft when the seller misrepresents the product. For example, to sell a man watered milk is theft. When you buy a hamburger your expect meat in your burger -- not hamburger helper. In this regard, today's pure food and drug laws, as abused as they may be, they are a valid application of God's laws against theft.

Any zoning law which reduces property values is a theft. Also to destroy a man's house by arson is theft, but it is also theft if the house is burned down by accident, that is by carelessness such as burning weeds nearby and losing control of the fire which burns down someone's house.

To damage a man's automobile is to rob him of its value. In this area, some restitution has been made more or less mandatory by the insurance laws of various states. However, insurance is a form of "social leveling" and a subject we do not have time for in this [message].

One of the biggest forms of theft is found in inflation. Inflation weakens or destroys the values of paper currencies, and those who cause inflation to their own betterment are thieves.

I certainly recognize that many people are out of work, some have lost their loved ones, and would have a difficult time if government did not steal from others and give to them. However, necessity does not justify theft, that is, necessity cannot give man's need priority over God's law. This means that just because a person is hungry or cold, he has no right to steal. But yet we allow government to steal and give to those who are hungry and cold.

However, Paul tells us very plainly in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 that: "... if any would not work, neither should he eat."

Thus, Scripture gives no ground for violating God's system of law and order: men are required to work within God's laws and provide for their own welfare and prosperity. The principle is, that if a man is mentally and physically able to work he must do so to provide for his own needs. Scripture simply does not allow government to operate a social welfare system, and neither does the Constitution of the United States for that matter.

Theft, then, as a short-cut to the possession of property, seeks not only to by-pass work as the means to obtaining wealth, but also to deny God's system of law and order. Scripturally, wealth can be acquired by three ways: labor, inheritance, or gift.

A socialist society is a thieving society and it will oppose all three means of acquisition. A thieving society will concern itself with legalized charity at the price of violating God's law.

Thus government steals from us when it taxes our labor, our inheritance, and our gifts from others. The income tax steals our labor, the inheritance tax steals our inheritance, and gifts are also stolen through the income tax. For example, when you leave a tip for a waitress, that is a gift, and yet that gift is taxed. If government could figure out a way to do so, it would tax birthday and Christmas gifts.

However, a corrupt people who are willing and in some cases demand that government steal and give to them, begets a corrupt state, which then cannot enforce even the best of laws without corruption.

When God's laws are abandoned, man's laws fill the void, and for this reason, we deserve all the tyranny we are getting.

Because a man is evil, rich, or poor makes no difference to God's law: he must still be dealt with under the law. Just because our neighbor is a thief, does not give us the right to rob him of anything he may have. Two wrongs have never made a right.

The attack on private property takes on several forms such as when powerful individuals despise the property rights of weaker individuals. The Social Darwinism which has prevailed in the United States since 1860 led to "robber barons" who used their power to trample law underfoot. These men justified their lawlessness by appealing to evolution and "the struggle for survival."

Then there are the evolutionists who believe that property is simply a tool whereby the state shapes man and the world. As a result, property is again under lawless attack, first from individuals and corporations, now from the state. Since property is a form of power, the totalitarian state seeks to control or to seize private property in order to prevent the people from having any power independently of the state.

But private property is a power which God entrusts to man as a stewardship, because it is God's intention that man should have and exercise power unto the end that the earth be subdued and man's dominion over the earth under God be established. Private property is a power given to man to be used under God and to His glory.

THEFT Part 2

In our last [message] I was talking about theft and how that Scripturally, even being hungry was no justification for stealing. This doctrine is based on many Scriptures, among them Proverbs 13:11 which states: Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase. The point being that our increase should come from our labor not from stealing from those who do labor for their increase.

However, I am aware that some Roman Catholic thinkers have given moral sanction to theft in times of necessity, and thus they would advocate that a person in danger of death from want of food, or suffering from any form of extreme necessity, may lawfully take from another person as much as is required to meet his present distress, even when faced with opposition by the rightful owner.

They would also state that the thief who steals from necessity would not be bound to pay restitution at a later date. They reason that individual ownership of the goods must yield to the stronger and more sacred right conferred by natural law upon every man to avail himself of such things as are necessary for his own preservation. I realize that is socialism, but that's their position -- not mine.

The problem with their thinking is that such a perspective suggests self-preservation by killing your neighbor, if necessary, that you might survive. Such a perspective gives man's ambitions priority over God's law. However, such an outlook has become law in this country as government steals property from those who have and gives to the have-nots. Government, knowing that it is wrong for a man to steal from another man, steps in under color of law and steals from the haves, to satisfy the needs of those who hunger. But as I explained in our last [message], the Supreme Court views such a taking by taxation as theft.

Our Christian bleeding-heart liberals sometimes resort to justifying theft for reasons of necessity by quoting Proverbs 6:30 which reads: One does not treat the thief scornfully if he steals To satisfy his craving when he is hungry; However, those who quote this verse are equally guilty of theft for they fail to tell us the whole story by reading this verse out of context. So let us read the whole story. Just prior to the verse in question we are told in verses 27 and 28:

27 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?
28 Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?

The idea being presented here is that if hot coals are placed on your body, your clothes cannot escape being burnt and likewise you cannot walk upon hot coals without getting your feet burnt. We would say "if you are going to play with fire your are going to get burnt." What is meant in these cases is that if we are going to do something wrong then we have to pay the penalty. And that is exactly what we will see in the verses that follow. Now let's read Proverbs 6:29-35:

29 So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.
30 Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;
31 But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.
32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
33 A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
34 For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance.
35 He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.

In verse 29, we see that, just as it is certain that a man who takes hot coals in his bosom or walks on hot coals gets burned, or is punished for his stupidity, likewise any man who violates his neighbor's wife shall get burnt, as he must be punished for breaking the law. Then in verse 30 and 31 a comparison is made in reference to not despising the man who steals because he is hungry and despising the adulterer.

Verse 30 says that men do not despise a thief who steals because he is hungry, which immediately implies that you do despise a man who violates his neighbor's wife. But the thief who is hungry is not so despised because at least his existence was threatened, whereas the adulterer's existence was not threatened by not taking his neighbor's wife.

The adulterer, in this case, would be a married man, and having a wife, his circumstances were not the same as the hungry man who had nothing to eat. Thus the situations are not even comparable. Even if the man were not married, the situations are not comparable for the sentence was still death in both cases.

But what is comparable is that both are subject to the penalty of the law. The adulterer is despised and put to death as he has committed a crime for which he cannot simply pay restitution and be readmitted back into society. And likewise the thief is not clear of the law of God just because he was hungry, and verse 30 still calls him a thief; and in verse 31 we find that when such a thief is caught, he is required to pay restitution for the goods he stole. So the theft is not justified because of his hunger, he is simply not despised.

However, whereas the adulterer cannot pay restitution and be restored back into society, we can forgive a thief if he repents and pays restitution. Thus, the thief who stole because he was hungry can seek repentance by paying restitution, and when he does he is restored to his place in society. But the point is that both the adulterer and the thief are subject to the laws of God, and theft because one is hungry is simply not justified.

The question I would ask our bleeding heart liberals is if there is a law of necessity, how do we determine who may take advantage of the law? Likewise I would ask, under what conditions is a person entitled to resort to using the law? You see lots of people are hungry but they also do not want to work and provide for themselves, and therefore they become leaches upon our society.

In previous [messages] I have pointed out that Paul said very plainly in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-11 that:

"... if any would not work, neither should he eat. "For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies."

This is a universal maxim and probably comes to us from the garden of Eden where God said to Adam: "In the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat bread." It was a proverb among the ancient writings of the Hebrews that: "Men who can work, and will rather support themselves by begging, should not get one morsel of bread. It is sin to administer to necessities that are merely artificial."

The principle of God's law is that industrious labor is crowned with the blessings of God, but idleness is loaded with his curses. It seems as though the problem at Thessalonica was that some men were not only being idle but becoming busybodies. Of course, when a man is idle he has time to become a busybody, that is, a gossip. In addition, Paul stated in Ephesians's 4:28:

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

It is presumed that some ruled that stealing had its place in society, such as the law of necessity; that is, as long as the thief gave some of his ill-gained booty to the poor. And here Paul sets the record straight saying "steal no more," and get to work.

Again this is the way our government functions today -- as a thief. Government, as the thief, steals our property and gives some of it to the poor. Of course, the theft is based on the presumption that they are helping the poor, and in a few cases they actually do. But the vast majority of our stolen money goes to pay for the bureaucracy. And so, as usual, the thief keeps the lion's share of the loot for himself and the vast majority of the poor continue to suffer.

In any event, according to Paul, the thief must steal no more, but rather toil to earn a living with his own hands, so he may have something to give the person in need.

Thus, Scripture gives no grounds for violating God's system of law and order: men are required to work within God's laws and provide for their own welfare and prosperity. Once again, the principle is that if a man is mentally and physically able to work he must do so to provide for his own needs. Scripture simply does not allow government to operate a social welfare system.