Chapter 8: Theft
Christian Economics: Student's Edition
[Updated: 3/29/21]
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die (Genesis 2:15--17).
Point three of the biblical covenant is law. It asks: "What are the rules?"
God gave a garden to Adam. Adam was to care for it. He was allowed to eat from any tree except one. He had almost universal access. There was only one piece of property that God set apart. He placed a judicial boundary around it. This made it holy. The meaning of the word "holiness" means "set apart by God." When Adam violated the tree's boundary, he committed an act of theft. But he also committed a profane act. The biblical meaning of "profane" is this: the violation of a holy boundary. This was an act of sacrilege.
The tree of life was also holy, but God gave Adam access to it before the fall. This changed after the fall.
Then the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life (Genesis 3:22--24).
This turned the entire garden into a holy place: set apart by God. God placed a boundary around it. This boundary was not merely judicial. A judicial boundary around the tree had failed to protect it. God made sure this time that Adam could not again commit another profane act. This was an act in defense of private property.
This event teaches clearly that the original sin was an act of theft. Adam had already mentally calculated that God was not who He said He was, i.e., a sovereign God who possessed the power of life and death. So, Adam had mentally rebelled. But God had not announced that mental rebellion against Him as a prohibited act. There had to be a physical violation of a property boundary in order for God to impose the negative sanction of death.
The original sin of man placed economics at the center of ethics. God had made this so. He placed the forbidden tree at the center of His covenantal relationship between God and man. It was the test of man's loyalty. Adam did the same with respect to God. He decided to run a test to see if God was who He said He was. The test would produce specific outcomes. Either Adam would get away with this, proving that God was not sovereign, or else God would impose negative sanctions on the two violators.
The negative sanctions on Adam included sweat through his labor, an economic sanction, and weeds in the ground, an economic sanction. His work would be more difficult. His costs of production would rise. This would decrease Adam's desire to work. When costs rise, less is demanded. This in turn would increase his desire to trade. Specialization increases output per unit of input.
From this time on, men stole. This seemed easier than making a living through serving customers. But the act of theft remained a violation of boundaries established by God. God continued to allocate wealth, skills, and opportunities according to His priorities, just as He had with Adam. He placed people in specific positions of authority, just as He had with Adam. This is the meaning of Jesus' parable of the talents. Jesus used it to describe the kingdom of God. A rich man prepares to go on a long journey. He transfers coins to his stewards. He later returns for an accounting. He hands out further rewards in terms of his personal economic gain as a result of their management of his money. He condemns a poor money-manager (Matthew 25:14--30).
This being the case, every act of theft is a violation of God's property rights. The victims of theft are agents of God, both from a legal standpoint and an economic standpoint. They are His representatives. The thief is saying that he has better uses for other people's wealth than they do. He prefers to benefit from their loss. The alternative is to serve customers through production. He finds it easier to steal. Theft is not productive. It does not create wealth. It reduces wealth. The gains of the thief come from the loss to the victim. The theft also increases other people's insecurity. They may decide to spend money on theft prevention. This removes money from their budgets for consumption, making them poorer.
Theft is a system of coercive wealth distribution from owners to thieves. It moves wealth from those who deserve it to those who do not. When this becomes widespread in society, it interferes with economic growth. The prophet Isaiah brought a covenant lawsuit against Israel. The moral corruption of the nation was manifested in acts of theft. Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not bring justice to the fatherless, and the widow's cause does not come to them (Isaiah 1:23).
The thief says to himself: The present distribution of wealth does not suit me. I will intervene in the economy and take what in principle is mine. I have been dealt with unfairly. I deserve better. This is an accusation against God that His present distribution of wealth is mistaken. The thief makes plans to place ownership on a better foundation. He places himself above God. Or, if he does not believe in God, he places himself above the decisions of consumers in allocating a portion of their own wealth to those entrepreneurs who serve them best, according to their individual assessments of value. Theft is a revolt against God's social order and economic order.
God prohibits theft. You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15). He prohibits ideas that might lead to theft. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's (Exodus 20:17). He places boundaries around the property of everyone who has gained his wealth legally. This is an affront to thieves. They see this as an illegitimate intrusion into their activities and plans. They do not accept the legitimacy of wealth distribution performed in competitive markets.
Men seek to protect their property. They spend a portion of their wealth on strategies to secure their property from thieves. Money that they would otherwise have spent on consumer goods and services goes for the purchase of locks and electronic security systems. Money that would have been invested to increase output is spent on private guards and vaults. Because it costs money to defend property, this reduces the net return from owning it. This forces down prices. Owners suffer economic losses. A good example is the price of real estate in high-crime neighborhoods.
The most serious crimes against property are committed by governments, especially national governments. Politicians raise taxes far above the 10% rate identified by God as tyrannical (I Samuel 8:10, 14). Bureaucrats intrude into every area of the economy with detailed rules and regulations that were never approved by any legislature. They set up central banks that inflate away people's investments as a result of falling currency value. This undermines trust in the civil government. People lose respect. They hide wealth. They do what they can to escape the tax man. Big businesses hire teams of lawyers and accountants to find loopholes in the tax laws. These firms build wealth by legal but costly tax avoidance schemes rather than by increasing output to satisfy consumers.
When the covenantal institution that God has established to be a scourge to criminals (Romans 13:1--7) itself becomes criminal, the public seeks deliverance. The public senses that injustice is dominant in society.
It is much worse when the public decides to join in the looting process. They vote for politicians who promise to "soak the rich" by getting the rich to pay "their fair share." This is theft, pure and simple. It is theft by the ballot box. It is the re-writing of the commandment against theft. "Thou shalt not steal except by majority vote." This is the sale of votes for the purpose of looting the wealth of others. Blocs of voters vote for politicians who promise to use the coercive power of the state to extract wealth from political enemies and give it to the voters who won the last election. It is done in the name of social justice. It is not social justice. It is social injustice. It is the politics of plunder.
What is most appalling is that these policies of political plunder are endorsed by Christian leaders. This is based on a theology called the social gospel or liberation theology. It is baptized theft by the state. There is nothing in the Bible that justifies it. These theologians can point to no Mosaic law or New Testament principle that authorizes the state to take money from one group to give to another group.
Modern man accepts the politics of plunder. This is the economics of authorized theft.
Point one of the biblical covenant is God's transcendence, yet also His presence. This is the biblical issue of God's sovereignty. It asks: "Who's in charge here?" How does this apply to theft?
Satan was the original squatter. He did not purchase property from Adam, let alone from God. He had the serpent lure Eve into a revolt. Then she served as spokesman for the serpent. Adam broke covenant with God on behalf of the serpent, who in turn acted on behalf of Satan. This was a case of creatures who were lower in God's hierarchy asserting both sovereignty and autonomy for themselves.
Satan did not require that Adam and Eve worship him. That was not necessary. It was sufficient that they broke covenant with God. Ultimately, however, Satan does demand man's worship. We see this in his temptation of Jesus in the wilderness.
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve'" (Matthew 4:9--10).
The devil offered Jesus the kingdoms of the world in exchange for worship. On what judicial basis could he make this offer? He was not the owner of these kingdoms. He was a squatter. He was dealing with Jesus, the incarnation of the son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. He was the Creator. Paul wrote of Jesus:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Colossians 1:15--17).
Satan was offering to Jesus what Jesus already owned as the incarnate Son of God. Jesus was the lawful heir of God. He collected His inheritance immediately after the resurrection (Matthew 28:18--20). Satan's theory of ownership was this: squatter's rights. He hoped that Jesus would accept his claim. If Jesus worshipped him, this would be Jesus' transfer of allegiance from God the Father to Satan. This would transfer ownership of the world in the name of God the Father to Satan. This was the ultimate temptation. This was why it was the third and final temptation of Jesus. This was the essence of the original temptation of Adam. Satan could not secure ownership from Adam, for Adam was only a temporary trustee in God's name. He was being tested by God. Would he respect God's property rights to the forbidden tree? Adam chose to test God's word by eating. But Adam could not legally transfer to Satan what the Second Person of the Trinity held in trust for God the Father.
The modern welfare state asserts original ownership when it is in fact a squatter. It has violated the limits of taxation, as God announced to Samuel. It has proven itself to be tyrannical.
Point two of the biblical covenant is hierarchical authority. It asks: "To whom do I report?" How does this apply to theft?
Jesus related this parable. It is the parable of the thieving stewards.
"Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. Finally he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.' And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons" (Matthew 21:33--41)
Jesus used a pocketbook parable to drive home a point: the Jews were in revolt against God. They would lose the kingdom because of this. "Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits" (v. 43). He presented this warning by means of a parable of a revolt against an owner by his servants.
It should take no leap of faith to see that the modern welfare state is the equivalent of this conspiracy of servants. It extracts four or five times the tax rate that God identified as tyrannical (I Samuel 8:10, 14). It does so in the name of the poor. This is a false claim. The poor have no Bible-based legal claim on the wealth of the middle class or the rich. The Bible proclaims a law-order which does not discriminate against rich or poor. You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor (Leviticus 19:15).
Point three of the biblical covenant is law. It asks: "What are the rules?" How does this apply to theft?
Adam invaded God's property when he ate from the forbidden tree. He violated a legal boundary. This is the essence of all moral and legal transgression: a boundary violation. The archetype of such a boundary violation is theft.
The Mosaic law placed a boundary around a family's home.
If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft (Exodus 22:2--3).A man has the right to protect his property against invasion. He has the right to kill the invader at night. The owner does not know who this invader is. It is dark. He may lawfully kill him, according to God's law.
But what if a tax collector invades during the day? The home owner must submit. But this is theft. The person with the badge and the gun is coming to steal in the name of the People. The People is the new god of society. It is the self-appointed squatter that claims original ownership of everything. Individuals and organizations are allowed by the state to act as trustees of the state's property, but the state reserves the right to revoke this trusteeship.
This is the only theory of property rights that is legally consistent with the level of taxation imposed by the modern welfare state. What the Mosaic law regarded as tyranny, voters today regard as ethical taxation.
Point four of the biblical covenant is sanctions. It asks: "What do I get if I obey? Disobey?" How does this apply to theft?
The modern welfare state imposes income taxes. These taxes are imposed at higher rates on the rich than on the poor. There are usually loopholes, but in the statutes, the pre-loophole rates are always higher for people with greater income. This is a violation of biblical justice. "You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15). Voters are not familiar with God's law, including Christian voters. They have been told that the graduated income tax is moral. They have been told this by advocates of the welfare state, who preach the doctrine of getting even with the rich through politics. This is the so-called politics of the fair share.
The welfare state imposes negative sanctions on economically successful people: high marginal tax rates. It transfers wealth to members of favored voting blocs: positive sanctions. The welfare state sees the state as a healing agency in society. It provides healing through government funding of medical services. There is nothing in the Bible authorizing state funding of medical care. Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan is based on the willingness of an individual to bear the costs of healing a victim of thieves (Luke 10:25--37).
Modern politics is the story of who wins and who loses. Winners impose economic losses on successful people in the name of the poor. But the poor remain poor. The big winners are the bureaucrats who administer the welfare state's compulsory wealth-transfer programs at salaries above what they could earn in the private sector.
Point five of the biblical covenant is succession. It asks: "Does this outfit have a future?" How does this apply to theft?
The most famous biblical story of inheritance and disinheritance is the story of Jacob and Esau. Esau was a covenant breaker. God had told his pregnant mother that Esau was under a permanent curse.
For this is what the promise said: About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls--she was told, The older will serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated- (Romans 9:9--13).
Jacob did not steal Esau's inheritance. Esau had sold it to him for a plate of stew and some bread: the most ludicrous voluntary economic exchange in the Bible (Genesis 25:29--34). Then, after Jacob and Rebekah had tricked the blind, stubborn Isaac into giving the blessing to Jacob, Esau was outraged.
As soon as Esau heard the words of his father, he cried out with an exceedingly great and bitter cry and said to his father, "Bless me, even me also, O my father!" But he said, "Your brother came deceitfully, and he has taken away your blessing." Esau said, "Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has cheated me these two times. He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing" (Genesis 27:34--36).
Esau was a cheat and a liar. He expected the blessing he had sold for a plate of stew. He got more than he deserved from Isaac. He wanted revenge. "Now Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him, and Esau said to himself, 'The days of mourning for my father are approaching; then I will kill my brother Jacob'" (v. 41). He was an evil, present-oriented man.
Esau is the archetype of today's present-oriented sons who have long since surrendered their inheritances for the economic equivalent of plates of stew. They want to get even with those who lawfully bought the inheritances by means of greater productivity. The Esaus of the world want to disinherit the lawful heirs. They want to reverse God's allocation of property. They are thieves. They use the state to serve as the agent of their theft. They want the state to veto the decisions of customers to reward some producers and not others. Yet most of these thieves never get ahead. The wealth that the state steals in their name dribbles away.
With Adam's theft of forbidden fruit, theft was unleashed on the world. Theft is the archetypal crime in the Bible, the representative sin against God. By means of the politics of plunder, theft remains the representative sin against God. How? Through stealing from successful people. God has raised them up. The welfare state seeks to tear them down. This does not apply to the super-rich. They have enough money to buy off the politicians. They get loopholes built into the tax code. They escape. But those who are lower down the wealth hierarchy fund the welfare state at high rates. Meanwhile, the state taxes all workers through non-graduated retirement taxes and sales taxes.
Theft before modern times was mostly individual. Kings and lords and the aristocracy plundered those under them, but never at the high tax rates of the modern welfare state. We live in the consummate age of theft. It is done in the name of the poor. It is done in the name of morality. There are thousands of academic economists who place their seal of approval on the welfare state and its taxes. They are paid above-market salaries in tax-funded universities to do this.
____________________________________________
For the rest of this book, go here: //www.garynorth.com/public/16564.cfm