November 21, 2009
Don't Accept the ISM!
Back in 1948 when this cartoon, "Make Mine Freedom" was created, they understood what we need to understand today. To watch the 9 minute video at You Tube click here.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL
It might at first appear that it is not necessary to even address this commandment, everyone knows it's wrong to steal. However, it is necessary to address this commandment because the key premise of this commandment is currently under attack by the Socialist. The key premise of the commandment "thou shalt not steal"1 is that other's property rights should be respected. Socialist believe there should be no private property. They believe all property should be held in common by the state. Wealth and property is generated by human labor and each person is entitled to the fruits of his own labor. If there were no such thing as private ownership of property and property rights, then the commandment "thou shalt not steal"2 would have no meaning. To respect private property is the natural order of things.
When a primitive man spent many days sharpening a stone to put an edge on it and then lashed it to a stick to make an ax, he knew that ax was his. He also knew if someone tried to take it away from him after he had put his labor into its manufacture, that he would use that ax to defend his possession of it. When a man first cultivated a piece of fallow ground and cut irrigation canals in it, and planted it with a crop and removed weeds, he knew that the crop was his property because it was his labor that created the crop. He also knew that the land was his possession.
God's law "thou shalt not steal"3 did not establish private ownership of property. Private ownership of property is the natural way of things, and God's law recognizes the way God made nature and the way God made man. The law facilitates prosperous living and harmony between people. Communism or common ownership of property is not the natural way for man to establish a prosperous community. The Bible does not establish or defend private ownership of property because private ownership of property existed as man's natural state. At the time Moses gave the commandments there was no need to defend the private ownership of property. It is only since the 17th century that this unnatural notion of common ownership of property has come into existence.
A good example that is often given to illustrate why common ownership of property cannot lead to prosperity in a civilized society where resources are in limited supply, is an illustration known as "The Tragedy Of The Commons." The illustration clearly shows why communism has never worked. The village in the illustration had a common pasture and all the people of the village grazed their cattle on the common pasture. The more cattle a person had the wealthier he was. As the population of the village grew, the number of cattle also increased. At some point the pasture became so overgrazed that adding more cattle decreased the net productivity of the pasture. At some point it would better for all the people raising cattle on the pasture if the total number of cattle was reduced. However, if one particular person decreased the number of cattle that he placed on the pasture, this would slightly benefit each person who had cattle on the pasture, but it would be a significant determent to one person who decreased the number of cattle he placed on the pasture. Therefore, each person had no motivation to decrease the number of cattle he had on the pasture. The net result was that the pasture was overgrazed and as the quality of the pasture went down due to overgrazing, each person in order to try to help himself placed more cattle on the common pasture.4
Communism operates on the false assumption that each person will make sacrifices necessary for the good of the community. This basic assumption denies man's basic nature, that is, that man has inherited the sin nature of his father Adam and is basically greedy and will only look out for his own good. For any economic system to work, it must take into consideration the basic nature of man. Since we are inherently wicked each of us has a tendency to do as little as possible and to get by at the expense of others. God's command "thou shalt not steal"5 brings great prosperity to society because it takes into consideration man's basic nature and requires that each person provide for his own necessities through his own labor rather than expecting others to take care of him.
The problem of the tragedy of the commons is solved by dividing the community pasture into privately owned parcels and allowing each person to take care of his parcel, and pasture his cattle on his own land. Stealing is common today. The government which should enforce God's law by prohibiting stealing has become an instrument of oppression by attempting to redistribute wealth through social programs. The commandment is simple "thou shalt not steal."6 It's wrong for the rich and powerful to take the property of the poor. It is equally wrong for the poor to take the property of the rich. If it's wrong for one person to take the property of another, (that is, to take the fruits of a person's labor from him), it is equally wrong for a group of people to band together and seize the property of another. This is exactly what is done with the graduated income tax. The "rich" are taxed for the benefit of the "poor".
This lack of respect for personal property is basically wrong because it goes against the law of nature. I am willing to work hard if I'm allowed to keep the fruits of my labor, but if my hard work benefits others who are unwilling to work, I become unwilling to work hard. This is why in communist countries the slogan of the worker's is "they pretend to pay us and we pretend work." The socialist believe that the pie should be cut in many small equal pieces but God's law with it's respect for private property, motivates people to bake more pies. The net result is that everyone prospers, this is why the economies of the West, which have maintained Biblical respect for private property, have prospered more than the communist nations. Communism has not been unsuccessful, it has successfully accomplished its true purpose, that is, to enslave the vast majority of people under the authority of those who control the government. In theory, in a communist country, no one owns anything, in fact, those who control the government, own everything and everyone.
This lack of respect for private property on the part of the government through social programs and graduated income tax causes a lack of respect for others property at all levels of society. The "poor" who are unwilling to work to support themselves and their families are told that they are "entitled" to be supported by the “rich”. The “rich” in our society are defined as those who drag themselves out of bed every morning and go put in a hard day's work. These "poor" who benefit from the "rich" have come to believe that those who work owe them a living.
When people are given money or any property that they haven’t worked for, it not only destroys their incentive to work but also leads them to believe that they are entitled to live off of the work of others. The welfare state has created a general lack of respect for the property of others in our society. It destroys societies work ethic and creates and attitude that each person is entitled to whatever he can get out of anybody else, regardless of whether he’s earned it or not. When people work they contribute to society and society rewards them economically for their labor. Most people derive a great deal of satisfaction from their work. When we give people welfare which they haven’t worked for, it destroys their sense of self-worth. It is not surprising that people stripped of their sense of self-worth turn to the use illegal drugs and other antisocial behavior. To correct the social ills of our society one of the first things we must do is to stop government theft, through the redistribution of wealth and social programs. Respect for private property rights cannot be restored until the government stops stealing.
Theft will always exist because some people choose to live off the labor of others. In order to minimize theft in a society it must be punished. Many people believe that the Biblical punishment for theft is the cutting off of a hand. The Bible does not command that thieves be punished by having their hands cut off. The Biblical remedy for theft is restitution. Exodus 22:1-7 states:
If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. If a man cause field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn or standing corn, or the field be consumed therewith; he that kindleth the fire shall surely make restitution. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it would be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found let him pay double.7
This passage is rather confusing. In some cases a thief must repay four or five times and in other cases repay double. It may be that an accurate translation of this passage indicates that restitution should always be double. The problem with understanding this passage is that some of the words such as sheep, and ox, etc. are improperly translated. An accurate translation of this passage indicates that two different Hebrew words are translated into the same English word and thus confuse the meaning of the passage. A proper translation of the passage would be:
If a man shall steal an ox (shor), or a sheep (seh), and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen (bakar) for and ox (shor), and four sheep (tson) for a sheep (seh).
The “shor” and “bakar” are types of cattle and are used in different parts of the scripture to signify the bull, the ox, the heifer, the steer and the calf. The “seh” and the “tson” are used to signify the ram, the eu, the lamb, the he-goat, the she-goat, and the kid. At times the word “tson” seems to signify the flock composed of any of these types of sheep or goats. Therefore, a proper translation of this passage is probably, “If a man steal a bull, he shall give five oxen for him”. If we go by the premise that restitution should usually double the amount stolen, that is return the stolen item plus one more, then it may be that five oxen are the equivalent of two bulls. If this is the case the uniform principle is that a thief should return the equivalent to what he had stolen, multiplied by two.8 Therefore, if a person steals $100 he should return $200. Why not just require the person that steals $100 to return the $100? If this is done there is no punitive effect. The person is only required to return what he has wrongfully taken. There is a valuable lesson in requiring a person to return twice what he has stolen.
The second part of verse three is extremely interesting, “if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft”.9 A person who steals, and has nothing with which to pay restitution, should be sold into slavery and be required to work as a slave until his restitution is paid.
In our society, the typical punishment for theft is imprisonment. Prisons were used in Biblical times by heathen nations. There is, however, no command in scripture to use prison as punishment for any crime. It should, therefore, not surprise us, that the current trend of building more prisons to house more criminals will not solve the crime problem.
Leviticus 6:1 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 2 "If a person sins and commits a trespass against the LORD by lying to his neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor, 3 or if he has found what was lost and lies concerning it, and swears falsely--in any one of these things that a man may do in which he sins: 4 then it shall be, because he has sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore what he has stolen, or the thing which he has extorted, or what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or the lost thing which he found, 5 or all that about which he has sworn falsely. He shall restore its full value, add one-fifth more to it, and give it to whomever it belongs, on the day of his trespass offering. 6 And he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD, a ram without blemish from the flock, with your valuation, as a trespass offering, to the priest. 7 So the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any one of these things that he may have done in which he trespasses."10
Notice first that the forms of theft discussed above are considered trespasses against God. Therefore as well as the restitution plus one fifth there was also the equivalent of a fine in the form of a sacrifice. All of the above deal with types of theft facilitated not by force but by dishonesty. With all such crimes there is a problem with proof. Such crimes are often nothing more then swearing contest in court. It is simply one persons word against the other. With such crimes the Bible is cautious about punishment. This may be because with such crimes there is a higher likelihood that the judge will believe the lying party, which would result in punishing the innocent part and rewarding the guilty party. It may be that the Bible is cautious about punishing such crimes because the only way the truth of the matter can be ascertained is if there is a confession, and a confession is more likely if the punishment is not too heavy. It may also be that punishing such crimes by requiring the return of the item stolen plus one fifth rather then returning double is because these types of thefts do not employ violence.
Chapter 10 from a book written by Charlie Fuqua
When a primitive man spent many days sharpening a stone to put an edge on it and then lashed it to a stick to make an ax, he knew that ax was his. He also knew if someone tried to take it away from him after he had put his labor into its manufacture, that he would use that ax to defend his possession of it. When a man first cultivated a piece of fallow ground and cut irrigation canals in it, and planted it with a crop and removed weeds, he knew that the crop was his property because it was his labor that created the crop. He also knew that the land was his possession.
God's law "thou shalt not steal"3 did not establish private ownership of property. Private ownership of property is the natural way of things, and God's law recognizes the way God made nature and the way God made man. The law facilitates prosperous living and harmony between people. Communism or common ownership of property is not the natural way for man to establish a prosperous community. The Bible does not establish or defend private ownership of property because private ownership of property existed as man's natural state. At the time Moses gave the commandments there was no need to defend the private ownership of property. It is only since the 17th century that this unnatural notion of common ownership of property has come into existence.
A good example that is often given to illustrate why common ownership of property cannot lead to prosperity in a civilized society where resources are in limited supply, is an illustration known as "The Tragedy Of The Commons." The illustration clearly shows why communism has never worked. The village in the illustration had a common pasture and all the people of the village grazed their cattle on the common pasture. The more cattle a person had the wealthier he was. As the population of the village grew, the number of cattle also increased. At some point the pasture became so overgrazed that adding more cattle decreased the net productivity of the pasture. At some point it would better for all the people raising cattle on the pasture if the total number of cattle was reduced. However, if one particular person decreased the number of cattle that he placed on the pasture, this would slightly benefit each person who had cattle on the pasture, but it would be a significant determent to one person who decreased the number of cattle he placed on the pasture. Therefore, each person had no motivation to decrease the number of cattle he had on the pasture. The net result was that the pasture was overgrazed and as the quality of the pasture went down due to overgrazing, each person in order to try to help himself placed more cattle on the common pasture.4
Communism operates on the false assumption that each person will make sacrifices necessary for the good of the community. This basic assumption denies man's basic nature, that is, that man has inherited the sin nature of his father Adam and is basically greedy and will only look out for his own good. For any economic system to work, it must take into consideration the basic nature of man. Since we are inherently wicked each of us has a tendency to do as little as possible and to get by at the expense of others. God's command "thou shalt not steal"5 brings great prosperity to society because it takes into consideration man's basic nature and requires that each person provide for his own necessities through his own labor rather than expecting others to take care of him.
The problem of the tragedy of the commons is solved by dividing the community pasture into privately owned parcels and allowing each person to take care of his parcel, and pasture his cattle on his own land. Stealing is common today. The government which should enforce God's law by prohibiting stealing has become an instrument of oppression by attempting to redistribute wealth through social programs. The commandment is simple "thou shalt not steal."6 It's wrong for the rich and powerful to take the property of the poor. It is equally wrong for the poor to take the property of the rich. If it's wrong for one person to take the property of another, (that is, to take the fruits of a person's labor from him), it is equally wrong for a group of people to band together and seize the property of another. This is exactly what is done with the graduated income tax. The "rich" are taxed for the benefit of the "poor".
This lack of respect for personal property is basically wrong because it goes against the law of nature. I am willing to work hard if I'm allowed to keep the fruits of my labor, but if my hard work benefits others who are unwilling to work, I become unwilling to work hard. This is why in communist countries the slogan of the worker's is "they pretend to pay us and we pretend work." The socialist believe that the pie should be cut in many small equal pieces but God's law with it's respect for private property, motivates people to bake more pies. The net result is that everyone prospers, this is why the economies of the West, which have maintained Biblical respect for private property, have prospered more than the communist nations. Communism has not been unsuccessful, it has successfully accomplished its true purpose, that is, to enslave the vast majority of people under the authority of those who control the government. In theory, in a communist country, no one owns anything, in fact, those who control the government, own everything and everyone.
This lack of respect for private property on the part of the government through social programs and graduated income tax causes a lack of respect for others property at all levels of society. The "poor" who are unwilling to work to support themselves and their families are told that they are "entitled" to be supported by the “rich”. The “rich” in our society are defined as those who drag themselves out of bed every morning and go put in a hard day's work. These "poor" who benefit from the "rich" have come to believe that those who work owe them a living.
When people are given money or any property that they haven’t worked for, it not only destroys their incentive to work but also leads them to believe that they are entitled to live off of the work of others. The welfare state has created a general lack of respect for the property of others in our society. It destroys societies work ethic and creates and attitude that each person is entitled to whatever he can get out of anybody else, regardless of whether he’s earned it or not. When people work they contribute to society and society rewards them economically for their labor. Most people derive a great deal of satisfaction from their work. When we give people welfare which they haven’t worked for, it destroys their sense of self-worth. It is not surprising that people stripped of their sense of self-worth turn to the use illegal drugs and other antisocial behavior. To correct the social ills of our society one of the first things we must do is to stop government theft, through the redistribution of wealth and social programs. Respect for private property rights cannot be restored until the government stops stealing.
Theft will always exist because some people choose to live off the labor of others. In order to minimize theft in a society it must be punished. Many people believe that the Biblical punishment for theft is the cutting off of a hand. The Bible does not command that thieves be punished by having their hands cut off. The Biblical remedy for theft is restitution. Exodus 22:1-7 states:
If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. If a man cause field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn or standing corn, or the field be consumed therewith; he that kindleth the fire shall surely make restitution. If a man shall deliver unto his neighbor money or stuff to keep, and it would be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found let him pay double.7
This passage is rather confusing. In some cases a thief must repay four or five times and in other cases repay double. It may be that an accurate translation of this passage indicates that restitution should always be double. The problem with understanding this passage is that some of the words such as sheep, and ox, etc. are improperly translated. An accurate translation of this passage indicates that two different Hebrew words are translated into the same English word and thus confuse the meaning of the passage. A proper translation of the passage would be:
If a man shall steal an ox (shor), or a sheep (seh), and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen (bakar) for and ox (shor), and four sheep (tson) for a sheep (seh).
The “shor” and “bakar” are types of cattle and are used in different parts of the scripture to signify the bull, the ox, the heifer, the steer and the calf. The “seh” and the “tson” are used to signify the ram, the eu, the lamb, the he-goat, the she-goat, and the kid. At times the word “tson” seems to signify the flock composed of any of these types of sheep or goats. Therefore, a proper translation of this passage is probably, “If a man steal a bull, he shall give five oxen for him”. If we go by the premise that restitution should usually double the amount stolen, that is return the stolen item plus one more, then it may be that five oxen are the equivalent of two bulls. If this is the case the uniform principle is that a thief should return the equivalent to what he had stolen, multiplied by two.8 Therefore, if a person steals $100 he should return $200. Why not just require the person that steals $100 to return the $100? If this is done there is no punitive effect. The person is only required to return what he has wrongfully taken. There is a valuable lesson in requiring a person to return twice what he has stolen.
The second part of verse three is extremely interesting, “if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft”.9 A person who steals, and has nothing with which to pay restitution, should be sold into slavery and be required to work as a slave until his restitution is paid.
In our society, the typical punishment for theft is imprisonment. Prisons were used in Biblical times by heathen nations. There is, however, no command in scripture to use prison as punishment for any crime. It should, therefore, not surprise us, that the current trend of building more prisons to house more criminals will not solve the crime problem.
Leviticus 6:1 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 2 "If a person sins and commits a trespass against the LORD by lying to his neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor, 3 or if he has found what was lost and lies concerning it, and swears falsely--in any one of these things that a man may do in which he sins: 4 then it shall be, because he has sinned and is guilty, that he shall restore what he has stolen, or the thing which he has extorted, or what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or the lost thing which he found, 5 or all that about which he has sworn falsely. He shall restore its full value, add one-fifth more to it, and give it to whomever it belongs, on the day of his trespass offering. 6 And he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD, a ram without blemish from the flock, with your valuation, as a trespass offering, to the priest. 7 So the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any one of these things that he may have done in which he trespasses."10
Notice first that the forms of theft discussed above are considered trespasses against God. Therefore as well as the restitution plus one fifth there was also the equivalent of a fine in the form of a sacrifice. All of the above deal with types of theft facilitated not by force but by dishonesty. With all such crimes there is a problem with proof. Such crimes are often nothing more then swearing contest in court. It is simply one persons word against the other. With such crimes the Bible is cautious about punishment. This may be because with such crimes there is a higher likelihood that the judge will believe the lying party, which would result in punishing the innocent part and rewarding the guilty party. It may be that the Bible is cautious about punishing such crimes because the only way the truth of the matter can be ascertained is if there is a confession, and a confession is more likely if the punishment is not too heavy. It may also be that punishing such crimes by requiring the return of the item stolen plus one fifth rather then returning double is because these types of thefts do not employ violence.
Chapter 10 from a book written by Charlie Fuqua
Apartments For Rent
One and two bedroom apartments, Bates, near Harrison and other, no pets. $390 - $475 per month, newly remolded, 612-3570, or 307-1264.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
