# Justification of property rights



## Christoffer (Jan 14, 2010)

I understand that human rights such as ownership cannot be proved empirically but are rather presupposed if you maintain that stealing is wrong etc.

But socialists sometimes claim that the right of ownership isn't inalienable but rather granted by the state. The state thus owns everything and grants rights to certain individuals. According to this doctrine there is no such things as government theft. That would be an oxymoron.

But what are the philosophical problems of this view? 

What instantly comes to mind is the question of how the government can be morally justified in doing something that the population is general isn't. Are there other problems connected to the view that the government is the almighty grantor of rights?


----------



## Whitefield (Jan 14, 2010)

Christoffer said:


> But socialists sometimes claim that the right of ownership isn't inalienable but rather granted by the state. The state thus owns everything and grants rights to certain individuals.


 
The philosophical concept of ownership (and stealing) occurred far before the philosophical concept of state.


----------



## Christoffer (Jan 14, 2010)

> The philosophical concept of ownership (and stealing) occurred far before the philosophical concept of state.



Wouldn't that put the onus on me to prove that stealing de facto occured before any state existed? 

That would beg the question, it seems.


----------



## Whitefield (Jan 14, 2010)

Christoffer said:


> > The philosophical concept of ownership (and stealing) occurred far before the philosophical concept of state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I don't think it would be that difficult ... just mention that there was a nomadic shepherd who killed a neighboring shepherd for stealing _his_ sheep; or, that there was a person who attacked another person for stealing from _his_ banana tree. What one thinks of as _his own_, is not something one waits on the state to define.

I'm sure the cave-man UG conceived that the meat on his fire was his because he hunted the animal that gave him that meat. He did not wait upon the central planning committee of the People's Republic of Cavemandom to tell him that was his meat.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 14, 2010)

The right of private property is embedded in the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal".
Thus it is a divinely established principle and not something based on human philosophy.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 14, 2010)

When I went through church membership class, a brief overview of the Westminster Standards included the concept of private property and that the fact that the church does not recognize "communal ownership" (socialism). Ownership of private property is the opposite of socialism.

(Be careful not to use the worship of God as an end to support political or economic ideas, but do the reverse)

Granted, there are varying degrees of "socialism" controlled by governments and their bureaucracy's but private ownership of property is fundamentally built into the law of God, and not only the eight commandment.

For example, the tenth commandment, "thou shalt not covet." This is based on people owning things that do not belong to others. 

My premise, and this may be difficult to see for those who have grown up in socialist influenced environments is that that system is fundamentally based on a tenth commandment violation. The politics of it certainly are.

It's interesting that the less free pools of capital in the hands of ordinary people there are, the more difficult it seems for the church to gather and appropriate resources from God's people.

While we would never teach the ten commandments toward the end of political or economic philosophy, in the ordinary course of teaching God's moral laws one sees that God really does give freedom, and that freedom has practical applications.

Man, in his fallen state imagines something other than God to "take care" of him, or to regulate the excesses of other (but not himself) whereas leaders often view themselves and their government or bureacracy as the source of freedom.

Not so.

Private property is a right and privilege that flows directly from the hand of God.

And governments among men are only legitimately instituted to protect God given rights.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 14, 2010)

*Quote from Christoffer S*


> The state thus owns everything and grants rights to certain individuals.



But where did the state get the right to own everything?

Modern states that exact large amounts of money from the populace for projects that are above and beyond justice and defence, need to be far more accountable to their electorates for what they do with that money if these governments are saying that this is the best way by which services such as health, welfare and education can be provided.

in an ideal world the civil government would be limited to exacting 10% from all; the church government would also exact another 10%. Main responsibility for HEW (health, education and welfare) would be on the church's shoulders, while justice and defence would be for the state.

If people felt that they were not getting what they wanted in HEW for the 10% plus free will offerings that they gave to the church, it would be up to them as private subjects and church members to do something about it.

Likewise with the state sphere. The idea that there should be no basic limits on how much the state can tax without proper consent, accountability and regular accounting by the people, at its most basic leads to the waste of vast amounts of public money by the state.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 14, 2010)

What I find interesting is that those most comfortable with government ownership usually cast themselves as populists. But historically, they'd find their roots more in a feudal system: the lords own everything, the serfs are totally dependent on the landowners for protection, the opportunity to farm, for everything in their lives.

I agree with what's been stated above: private ownership is at the root of the 8th commandment and can be seen in the division of land amongst the tribes of Israel and again amongst the families, and all the laws that went with the ownership of that land.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 14, 2010)

Good point about the similarity or connection between socialism and feudalism. In both systems , an elite oligarchy owns and runs everything to their own benefit. In both systems, economic development is minimized and the masses are impoverished. Ultimately even the oligarchy suffers, but that is rarely foreseen or admitted. Instead, power becomes more and more tyrannical in an effort to correct the system.

So as they say, "Resistance is feudal."


----------



## Christoffer (Jan 15, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> But where did the state get the right to own everything?



Exactly, this is what I am thinking about. I am looking for an internal critique of socialism. It seems that this is the question that cannot be answered by socialists. 



> in an ideal world the civil government would be limited to exacting 10% from all; the church government would also exact another 10%. Main responsibility for HEW (health, education and welfare) would be on the church's shoulders, while justice and defence would be for the state.



Church responsible for HEW? Interesting.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Jan 15, 2010)

Socialism isnt communism, so the argument against private property for socialism is not really philosophically based, it argues more against pure capitalism. It incoherently maintains gov't intervention and private property. You can exploit that incoherence. (We all agree to a little bit of socialism, if you think about it.)


----------



## Christoffer (Jan 15, 2010)

DeborahtheJudge said:


> Socialism isnt communism, so the argument against private property for socialism is not really philosophically based, it argues more against pure capitalism. It incoherently maintains gov't intervention and private property. You can exploit that incoherence. (We all agree to a little bit of socialism, if you think about it.)



Well, we agree to socialism to the extent that it deals only with indivisible products such as the police and national defense.

But that is us christians. A secularist would have problems justifying even law enforcement. What right has the government got for putting someone in jail for burglary? How can it be morally justified according to his own principles?


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 15, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Man, in his fallen state imagines something other than God to "take care" of him, or to regulate the excesses of other (but not himself) whereas leaders often view themselves and their government or bureacracy as the source of freedom.



My post may be a bit  but...Would this go along, somewhat, with what Nietzsche said (the "God is dead" quote) that humans would look elsewhere for deliverance/salvation and that in our day that would be the government?


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 15, 2010)

DeborahtheJudge said:


> Socialism isnt communism, so the argument against private property for socialism is not really philosophically based, it argues more against pure capitalism. It incoherently maintains gov't intervention and private property. You can exploit that incoherence. (We all agree to a little bit of socialism, if you think about it.)


 
One way to understand this is that Marxism is a world view. Its view of economics is socialism. Its philosophy is dialectical materialism. Its view of history is historical materialism. Its religion is atheism.

All these compose its world view.

Christianity has a world view- its economics is stewardship over private property, not socialism.



> *cecat90*
> 
> My post may be a bit but...Would this go along, somewhat, with what Nietzsche said (the "God is dead" quote) that humans would look elsewhere for deliverance/salvation and that in our day that would be the government?



Biblically, this is a tendency in fallen human beings- to idolatrize kings, leaders, material things.

We put our faith in politicians to "give us" the material things we want. Socialism is based on taking what belongs to someone and redistributing it through government bureaucracy with a pretended faith in that leader or system to provide.

It is based on covetousness, envy a form of it, an entitlement to material things not earned... and "makes sense" to the fallen (self interested) man. He can even rationalize it is more spiritual to do so, imagining civil arbitration a basis for dependence and allegiance in this life.

Nothing new about that- Israel broadly expected something like this in our Lord's generation, and previously lived it out in the form of kings.

Nothing new about covetousness and idolatry being expressed as an outworking of civil governance at all. (That's why freedom is so rare in human history.)


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 15, 2010)

Scott, in response to my comment, what you said reminds me of the 1 Samuel 8 passage!

1 Samuel 8

Israel Demands a King

1When Samuel became old,(A) he made his sons judges over Israel. 2The name of his firstborn son was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. 3Yet his sons did not walk in his ways(B) but turned aside after gain.(C) They took bribes and perverted justice.
4Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at(D) Ramah 5and said to him, "Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways.(E) Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations." 6But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7And the LORD said to Samuel, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you,(F) for they have not rejected you,(G) but they have rejected me from being king over them. 8According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. 9Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them(H) and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them."

Samuel’s Warning Against Kings

10So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking for a king from him. 11He said,(I) "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: (J) he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some(K) to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14(L) He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves,(M) but the LORD will not answer you in that day."
The LORD Grants Israel’s Request

19But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, "No! But there shall be a king over us, 20(N) that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." 21And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the LORD. 22And the LORD said to Samuel,(O) "Obey their voice and make them a king." Samuel then said to the men of Israel, "Go every man to his city."


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 15, 2010)

Yes, and we're studying through I and II Samuel right now.

Israel demanded a human king, as they were not content with God. He told them they would regret it. They wanted someone other than God to place their faith in, that's the spiritual problem (idolatry).

It amazes me that people today will so easily place their faith in politicians today, even to the extend of almost unquestioned faith that they can reduce the earth's temperature one-half degree in 50 years if only they will surrender some freedom, and some of their resources now. Or that they will "punish" those above certain incomes by taking away away their income (even if they don't themselves do better). This is covetousness.

They are not new.

The ten commandments reveal God's will against idolatry in every form.

Against covetousness in every form.

Yet, man left to himself will seek them as the ordinary course of human events.

This is not new, and is very displeasing to our God.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Jan 15, 2010)

> One way to understand this is that Marxism is a world view. Its view of economics is socialism. Its philosophy is dialectical materialism. Its view of history is historical materialism. Its religion is atheism.
> 
> All these compose its world view.
> 
> Christianity has a world view- its economics is stewardship over private property, not socialism.



Not all socialism is Marxism...simple Marxism isn't widely held. You'd need more information to ascertain their philosophy. 

Having a worldview doesn't necessitate a certain political philosophy. Its much more complicated than that.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 15, 2010)

DeborahtheJudge said:


> > One way to understand this is that Marxism is a world view. Its view of economics is socialism. Its philosophy is dialectical materialism. Its view of history is historical materialism. Its religion is atheism.
> >
> > All these compose its world view.
> >
> ...


 

I don't think thats the order Scott said it in though. He didn't say that socialism is Marxism but that the Marxist view of the economy is socialist. Right?


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 15, 2010)

Correct me on this if I'm wrong but Marxist Communists are socialists in their view of the economy. However, not every socialist is a Marxist Communist. Its sort of like saying every square is a rectangle, but NOT every rectangle is a square.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Jan 15, 2010)

C -true. my post is referring to the OP.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 15, 2010)

DeborahtheJudge said:


> > One way to understand this is that Marxism is a world view. Its view of economics is socialism. Its philosophy is dialectical materialism. Its view of history is historical materialism. Its religion is atheism.
> >
> > All these compose its world view.
> >
> ...


 
Yes, you are correct not all overall philosophies that follow socialism for economics are Marxist. 

World views have several major components and economic theory is only one of them. An important one that effects life on this earth, but not the only one.

But a Christian world view never follows socialism for economics. It follows stewardship of private property given by God.

Christianity, informed by all of Scripture will produce certain philosophies and will, by necessity, refute others.

For example, Christianity follows a philosophy of supernaturalism. Secular humanism (particularly the philosophy of Western Europe) follows naturalism.

And so it is in every aspect of life, Christianity will lead to a different place than the philosophies of men (e.g. dialectical materialism, socialism, punctuated evolution etc.)


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 15, 2010)

DeborahtheJudge said:


> C -true. my post is referring to the OP.


 
Gotcha.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 15, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> DeborahtheJudge said:
> 
> 
> > > One way to understand this is that Marxism is a world view. Its view of economics is socialism. Its philosophy is dialectical materialism. Its view of history is historical materialism. Its religion is atheism.
> ...


 

What about the Acts 2:42-47 passage that Christian socialists use (I know, oxymoron huh). The reason I mention that is people will use this passage to show that the Christian worldview _should_ be socialist. I get this viewpoint from professing Christians as well. 

I don't think that the Act 2 passage means we should embrace socialism, but what would be your rebuttal to a claim that it should?


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 16, 2010)

> *cecat90*
> What about the Acts 2:42-47 passage that Christian socialists use (I know, oxymoron huh). The reason I mention that is people will use this passage to show that the Christian worldview should be socialist. I get this viewpoint from professing Christians as well.



There are so many levels on which to show biblically that this is not the biblical norm of economics. Not within the church, but even more so not a function of civil government.

First, remember that we interpret the unclear in light of the clear, a basic interpretation principle. So, if we have four verses that are explicit and didache (doctrine) that say one thing and another, unclear in its context, we resolve the unclear in light of the clear.

We know we have built into the fundamental moral law of God, binding on all men in all generations, private ownership of property. The eighth commandment not to steal, the tenth not to covet what your neighbor owns. There are applications in other commandments as well including the second, fourth, and possibly others.

So, private ownership of property given by God is "all over" the basic law God has given His creatures.

The pattern from Genesis is for man to "take dominion" over the land (and its resources) which is one of using and accumulating wealth for his benefit which implies ownership and control.

The section in Acts is not repeated any where else. The government ("Cesear") was not doing the re-distributing. It is implied this was a temporary situation under the controls of the Apostles.

This was not a case of Cesear drawing dependence on his power, taking resources from believers and nonbelievers, running it through a bureaucracy which determines its distribution. To make a leap to all that is absurd.

Also, study the passage carefully. What were Ananias and Sapphira struck dead by God for?


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 16, 2010)

Christoffer said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > But where did the state get the right to own everything?
> ...



I'm not making too strict an ideological point. Sometimes the civil government may be the best organisation or only organisation available to step in and do something. E.g. Joseph and the Egyptian government in the case of the famine. A government welfare system may be better than no welfare system at all e.g. many Third World and Developing countries where many of the poor live on dung heaps!

The Bible teaches that the deserving poor must be looked after and there should be a degree of compassion for the undeserving poor.. Ideally by organisations other than the state. But in a nation where more and more people are ungodly and there is less and less responsibility, the state ends up having to pick up the pieces.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 16, 2010)

> *Richard Tallach*
> The Bible teaches that the deserving poor must be looked after and there should be a degree of compassion for the undeserving poor.. Ideally by organisations other than the state. But in a nation where more and more people are ungodly and there is less and less responsibility, the state ends up having to pick up the pieces.



We had a Pastor at a church in a very poor area, infested with drugs, broken families and alcoholism teach us one Lord's Day on this topic generally.

He used texts from Leviticus I remember and basically said the Church is to:

1) eliminate poverty in her midst
2) alleviate poverty outsider her midst

This could be a thread in itself, but only to say that if that is a good summary of Scripture several points come out implicitly to me:

1) The church must have material resources with which to do this (capitalism produces pools of wealth in the hands of ordinary people with which to do this, socialism restricts it and shifts its focus)

2) The call is to eliminate "poverty"- biblically that's probably basic food, clothing and a safe place to sleep
[It's not a cell phone, computer, lottery tickets, beer money, cable television, etc. as we define poverty in this generation]

3) We can eliminate real poverty in the covenant community of the church. I think I Corinthians teaches that if we approach this in faith.

4) We cannot eliminate real poverty in the world until our Lord returns.

5) One of the reasons why debt ought be eliminated in our personal lives, and why we ought insist on it for our civil governments as an ordinary pattern is because we can do more to help the poor without it (individuals by more income, governments because it tends to trigger inflation and/or recession)

6) If civil governments are to play a role in redistributing wealth to "help the poor" it must be because the church has resources but is unwilling to do it and the "help" must be focused on true poverty (not on subsidizing internet access or subsidizing ordinary health care, etc.).


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 16, 2010)

Real property is already completely owned by the state in the USA. Just stop paying the rent (they call it 'property tax') and see who comes and evicts you from it.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 16, 2010)

Brad said:


> Real property is already completely owned by the state in the USA. Just stop paying the rent (they call it 'property tax') and see who comes and evicts you from it.


 

Along these lines is also eminent domain


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Jan 17, 2010)

> Yes, you are correct not all overall philosophies that follow socialism for economics are Marxist.
> 
> World views have several major components and economic theory is only one of them. An important one that effects life on this earth, but not the only one.
> 
> ...



Scott, 

Its obviously true that Christian philosophy will be different from secular philosophy (Punctuated equilibirium is a scientific theory...though let's not go there ).

But when offering a reply to someone that alludes to socialism with a comment about Marxism, you have to be more specific because you've not addressed the comment.

"But a christian never follows socialism for economics."
You still haven't defined socialism. 

"It follows stewardship of private property given by God."
I feel I could heartily agree with you, except that you've defined private property too ambiguously (and assumed rather than argued for a certain view of natural law) in your previous posts.

"Christianity, informed by all of Scripture will produce certain philosophies"
Scanning the literature for Christian thought on the subject of private property will actually yield a diversity of viewpoints, and quite a bit of nuance. 




> But what are the philosophical problems of this view?


 This is the question I was addressing.





> What instantly comes to mind is the question of how the government can be morally justified in doing something that the population is general isn't. Are there other problems connected to the view that the government is the almighty grantor of rights?



On its face, the philosophical view doen't work. But there may be a hierarchy of rights, with gov't rights trumping personal rights in certain matters. Coming to my mind is John Frame's theory of state as the family-state which is seen as a larger extention of the nuclear family. In general, if you view headship and hierarchy as legitimate, its possible to conceive of "rights" gov't has that the people don't.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 17, 2010)

> *DeborahtheJudge*
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Its obviously true that Christian philosophy will be different from secular philosophy (Punctuated equilibirium is a scientific theory...though let's not go there ).



Not Puntuated _equilibrium_ but evolution. Puntuated evolution is the biology part of the world view of Marxist Leninism. 

The biology of a Christian word view is Creation(ism).



> But when offering a reply to someone that alludes to socialism with a comment about Marxism, you have to be more specific because you've not addressed the comment.



The point was socialism is the economics of Marxism, which is a world view. Socialism is not the economics of Christianity, not at all.

A socialism economics view is not necessarily a Marxist/Leninism world view. But Marxist/Leninism necessarily has socialism as its economics. That's the point.



> "But a christian never follows socialism for economics."
> You still haven't defined socialism.



I'm not seeing anyone has defined it explicitly so far on the thread, it seems we are assuming we all generally know what it is.

Here's Mr. Webster's primary, secondary and tertiary definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Socialism



> Main Entry: so·cial·ism
> Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
> Function: noun
> Date: 1837
> ...





> *Scott1* "It follows stewardship of private property given by God."
> 
> I feel I could heartily agree with you, except that you've defined private property too ambiguously (and assumed rather than argued for a certain view of natural law) in your previous posts.



How has private property been defined too ambiguously?



> "Christianity, informed by all of Scripture will produce certain philosophies"
> Scanning the literature for Christian thought on the subject of private property will actually yield a diversity of viewpoints, and quite a bit of nuance.



What particular Christian literature are you thinking of here?


----------



## Christoffer (Jan 18, 2010)

Actually, the point I wanted to make in the OP is how any form of governmental coercion can be justified from a secular viewpoint. 

Normally, a socialist would agree that coercion between individuals is wrong. For example, forcing someone to spend their money on a certain thing under threat of violence would be wrong.

This presupposes that the individual has some rights.

But in the case of government, it is suddenly right to coerce people. I am wondering if there is an internal inconsistency in the socialists philosophy here. I don't see by what principle he could justify governmental coercion if he has agreed that coercion between individuals is wrong.

From the christian viewpoint, this is no problem. It is wrong to steal, and no exception is made for the government (except concerning protection of rights)


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 18, 2010)

Christoffer said:


> But in the case of government, it is suddenly right to coerce people. I am wondering if there is an internal inconsistency in the socialists philosophy here. I don't see by what principle he could justify governmental coercion if he has agreed that coercion between individuals is wrong.


 
They don't view it as coercion though. I know this has been the debate in American this past year. The right-wingers view the social programs and the government intrusion as coercion and the government taking money from some to 'aid' others as coercion. The left-wingers who are in favor of Obama's agenda claim it is not government coercion when the right-wingers claim it is. Left-wingers, or the extremists (socialists) don't view it as coercion as far as the majority of them are. They think of it as more of 'redistribution' and this is the line that usually sums up their viewpoint: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

---------- Post added at 11:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------




Christoffer said:


> Actually, the point I wanted to make in the OP is how any form of governmental coercion can be justified from a secular viewpoint.
> 
> Normally, a socialist would agree that coercion between individuals is wrong. For example, forcing someone to spend their money on a certain thing under threat of violence would be wrong.
> 
> ...


 

Freedom and Equality. Two words that are found in the American constitution. Two principles America was founded on. Somehow though, from the 60's on and it could be argued maybe even before, the main focus has been on "equality." We're slowly losing certain freedoms everyday now. However, in the post-modern humanist society we live in the way people have been trying to bring about equality is at the cost of freedom. Instead of having both we are losing both in my opinion. Forcing "equality" doesn't make it equality anymore. 

So it is obvious that there are serious problems with the socialist agenda and trying to create "unity" and a sense of equality. As far as rhetoric goes though, most socialists, or left-wingers, will use the words freedom and equality to push their agenda forward. (That's the only way people will buy it). I guess they do presuppose the individual has some rights.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Jan 18, 2010)

Scott,

Socialist economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You'll also see some different views of private property at play here. I happen to find Distributism interesting.

I'm not really interested in engaging you on this thread anymore since the OP is about a specific situation. No hard feelings, brother.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 18, 2010)

> *Christoffer*
> Normally, a socialist would agree that coercion between individuals is wrong. For example, forcing someone to spend their money on a certain thing under threat of violence would be wrong.



It's hard to find socialism, in any of its general forms, including that of Western Europe as anything but coercive and controlling of one's destiny. The exact tax rates make it a question of degree, but how can a 20% VAT on everything plus a 50% or even higher income tax rate be anything other than both those things.

The notion in socialism being, generally, that government has the broad authority to own and control, whereas the individual does not.

This goes back to something fundamental, if one believes the King is granted the right by God to grant property rights to the people
or that God grants property rights to the people and they decide what powers the King gets.

Feudalism and the socialism that has developed out of it are the latter, a broad downward delegation of rights.

Private property tends to build wealth (and rights) from people up.



> Actually, the point I wanted to make in the OP is how any form of governmental coercion can be justified from a secular viewpoint.



Perhaps we can say government can coerce individuals with legitimate powers given them by the people, but not starting with the assumption all property rights begin with government.


----------

