The right to own property is essential to maintaining a free society. The Founding Fathers of the United States considered property ownership as a God-given foundational right, and this belief was the underlying cause of the American Revolution. The doctrine of property rights was so important, that it was canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants, considered scripture by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This paper will discuss some of the early writings on this subject, both from a political and a religious perspective, and also explore how the concept of property rights may be taught in the home.
The year 1620 brought the Pilgrims to Plymouth Rock, and along with them a heart-wrenching example of what happens when the principle of property ownership is violated in favor of a forced communal society. Wanting to shatter the shackles of servitude from which they had fled, they decided that private property was the basis for the greed and selfishness that had permeated their previous society. They chose instead a communal system, in which all of the property and the labor to maintain it would be shared equally by all. Farming, housekeeping, and child raising were all done as a group, with no one being able to claim ownership over anything. The result of this experiment were recorded by Governor Bradford in his journal:
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine [complain] that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors everything else, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them.
And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them” Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.
For two years, they continued the communal living, during which time the people became lazy and hungry. Finally, the leadership decided that something needed to be done before the whole colony starved to death, so they set up a system in which each family was given a piece of property to work and told to go to it. Again from Bradford’s journal, we read the result:
“They had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the faces of things were changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.
“Indeed, their bounty was so great, that they had enough to not only trade among themselves but also with the neighboring Indians in the forest. In November 1623, they had a great feast to which they also invited the Indians. They prepared turkey and corn, and much more, and thanked God for bringing them a bountiful crop. They, therefore, set aside a day of ‘Thanksgiving.’”
This is the true story of Thanksgiving, but we rarely hear the part private property played in the eventual success of this early group of pilgrims.
In 1690, John Locke, an early advocate of free societies, and a writer frequently referenced by the Founders, had this to say about property rights:
The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.” He also said, “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience,… [1]
James Madison echoed this sentiment in 1792 when he wrote: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his.” In the same paper, Madison defined property as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual,” and went on to delineate the different forms of property: land, merchandise, money, opinions, and a man’s person.[2]
Locke’s and Madison’s writings reflected the prevailing beliefs of their day: That the purpose of government was to protect a man in his right to life, liberty and property. As one studies the writings of the early economists such as Karl Marx and Frederic Bastiat, it becomes clear that the main focus of their writings was the control of property. Bastiat, and other free market defenders, believed that everyone had a right to own property, as long as they were willing to work their land and be good stewards of it, and that people had the right to set up governments to protect them in that right. Others, such as Marx, thought that all property should belong to the government, with everyone being given whatever they received from that government, thus erasing the distinction between rich and poor and putting everyone on equal ground. Besides the pilgrims mentioned above, we have economies such as Russia and East Germany to show us where that thinking leads.
A doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints asserts: “We believe that no government can exist in peace except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life” and that “all men are justified in defending…their…property…from the unlawful assaults and encroachments from all persons in times of exigency [urgency], where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded”.[3] This doctrine was recorded in 1835, and, as was shown, agreed with the prevailing attitude among the Founding Fathers of this nation.
Joseph Smith and the other members of the LDS Church (Mormons) knew first hand what it was like to live under a government that only gave lip service to the protection of private property, which as Madison stated, included a man’s beliefs. The members were persecuted for their beliefs and driven from their homes time and again, with neither protection nor recourse from the government. They knew that their rights had been violated, but had no way to defend themselves. As both Locke and Joseph Smith said: When the government has been petitioned, and no help has been forth coming, the people then assume the right to defend themselves from their enemies. There is an order to all things, and the defense of property is no exception. When a government is in place, it should be appealed to before any person or group takes matters into his own hands, but once the appeals have been made and denied, man has the God-given, unalienable right to defend himself and his property. John Adams summed it up well when he said: “[t]he moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist.”[4]
Bringing this a little closer to home, the question arises as to how parents might be able to teach this principle to their children. One way, of course, is to sit them down and read to them from the scriptures and the writings of the Founders on the subject. Another way would be to start long before they are even old enough to grasp the meaning of those writings by allowing them to experience the feeling that comes with ownership, under a benevolent dictator who allows them the rights to their property. While we may not be able to set up a true republican form of government in the home, since children must be taught correct principles before being allowed to govern themselves, we can do some things to simulate an environment for teaching some of these ideas in a way they can understand. The following stories illustrate two different ways of dealing with property issues in our home.
In his book, Spiritual Roots of Human Relations, Stephen R. Covey told of a time when he came home to find his 3-year-old daughter crying during her birthday party because she didn’t want to share her new toys with all of the children who had come to the party. Several parents were standing around watching, and after repeated attempts to reason with her, going so far as to bribe her unsuccessfully with gum, he finally just took the toys and gave them to the other children to play with, being embarrassed all the while about the incident. After reflecting on the situation he realized that “Perhaps my daughter needed the experience of possessing the things before she could give them. (In fact, unless I possess something, can I ever really give it?)”
The second example shows how allowing children to feel ownership over their possessions can avoid many of the typical problems that parents frequently encounter.
As a young mother, [Katherine] Klemp often brought home games and toys from garage sales. “I rarely matched a particular item with a particular child,” she says. “Upon reflection, I could see how the fuzziness of ownership easily led to arguments. If everything belonged to everyone, then each child felt he had a right to use anything.”
To solve the problem, Klemp introduced two simple rules: First, never bring anything into the house without assigning clear ownership to one child. The owner has ultimate authority over the use of the property. Second, the owner is not required to share. Before the rules were in place, Klemp recalls, “I suspected that much of the drama often centered less on who got the item in dispute and more on whom Mom would side with.” Now, property rights, not parents, settle the arguments.
Instead of teaching selfishness, the introduction of property rights actually promoted sharing. The children were secure in their ownership and knew they could always get their toys back. Adds Klemp, “‘Sharing’ raised their self-esteem to see themselves as generous persons.”
Not only do her children value their own property rights, but also they extend that respect to the property of others. “Rarely do our children use each other’s things without asking first, and they respect a ‘No’ when they get one. Best of all, when someone who has every right to say ‘No’ to a request says ‘Yes,’ the borrower sees the gift for what it is and says ‘Thanks’ more often than not,” says Klemp.[5]
These stories illustrate a powerful lesson that applies to adults as well as children. When we feel ownership for property and know that it will be protected, we are freed to be generous with those around us. When a government takes upon itself the responsibility of caring for the poor and the needy by taking from those who have, to give to those who don’t have, those being forced to be charitable are less likely to give their money freely to those who need it, figuring that people can always go to the government for help. The money the government takes for this purpose goes through many hands and is greatly diluted by the time it reaches those individuals whom it claims to be helping. When the governments stay out of the people’s pockets, except for money to fund legitimate programs involving defense of basic liberties, the people have more to give and feel more inclined to do so.
Private property ownership lies at the heart of what made this country a haven of liberty for people from all over the world who flocked to come here. This principle should be taught in the home through word and example so that our children will grow up understanding its importance and being able to defend it. If people understand the correlation between freedom and property rights they will not allow government to infringe on those rights. A free society cannot exist if its government does not recognize and protect the right to own and control property.
[1] Locke, John. 2nd Treatise on Government, 1690.
[2] The Complete Madison, p. 267.
[3] Doctrine and Covenants 134:1,11.
[4] Adams, John. A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787.
[5] Quoted in the article “Property Rights,” by Arman A. Alchian. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html
If the purpose of government is to protect a man in his right to life, liberty and property. Can it do so without violating these same rights?
Not if it’s a public government, a state: http://www.ldsfreemen.com/the-state-and-proper-role-of-government/
And as our body is also property too (our own property) this gives even more meaning to the truth that property underlies all our liberty. Property is thus our stewardship. Socialist practises rob us of much of that stewardship and thus create an environment not in harmony with the Plan of our Heavenly Father.