I believe that most, if not the vast majority, of people who read this blog clearly (and correctly) believe that the Bible strongly protects property rights.  After all, many of the commandments relate to “property” in some fashion.  For example, the first commandment forbids the worship of any other gods other than the true God, reflecting His unique position as Creator of the Universe, to whom all the universe belongs.  Creating graven images and taking God’s name in vain would be dilutions of His trademark–His reputation and attributes, which belong to Him–and so they are forbidden.  Observance of the (seventh day) Sabbath (and Holy Days) is commanded because time also belongs to Him and He gets to set the rules on how that time should be spent.  Additionally, obedience to the command to honor fathers and mothers (and by extension all authority figures–that’s a difficult one) is connected with the blessing of longevity.  Likewise, murdering is offensive in part because human beings are created in God’s image and therefore the taking of life belongs to God (who grants the right to take it to human beings only as a result of crime, i.e. sin, according to His standards).  Adultery is the theft of a husband or wife, through their affections, who belongs by covenant to their spouse.  Sometimes that theft, like in fornication, occurs before marriage, through the spoiling of someone’s innocence for their future spouse.  Stealing is obviously theft, and coveting someone’s possessions (commandment #10) is an attack on the right of people to their own property.  Lying, additionally, is the theft of someone’s good name through slander and false allegations, something we see far too often in our world.

Nonetheless, as a result of habit, perhaps, we are not always conscious of the wide expanse of rights that the defense of property entails.  We also do not appear to be conscious enough of who property rights belong to, and why.  We usually think of property as something that wealthy people have–houses, land, luxury goods.  We may wish to protect the profits of businesses from confiscatory taxation, or grouse that workers may behave in “theft of time” by pursuing other business on work hours.  It is my intent today to focus on some aspects of property rights that are often unrecognized because they belong to people whose property rights are not often recognized:  workers.

Entitlement, according to Collins Thesaurus of the English Language (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entitlement) means:  right, claim, due, licence, permission, privilege, prerogative.  Young people and ordinary workers are often accused by those who believe themselves their betters of having a sense of entitlement–for believing that they have just claims and rights.  In some cases, this sense of “entitlement” causes them to act in ways that are improper, by claiming what they do not by right possess.  Nonetheless, let us ask whether some of the claims of entitlement that could be made are in fact true.

How could this be so?  Let us ask what just (biblical) claims can be made by workers, young people, and others to whom property rights are not readily granted.  First, we must grant that “a laborer is worthy of his wages,” as it says in Luke 10:7 and 1 Timothy 5:18.  Additionally, Leviticus 19:13 reads:  “The wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning.”  Not only do workers deserve wages, but to withhold the wages of those who have earned it by prolonging the time before they have been paid is itself stealing.  This is because of the time value of money (money decreases in value over time due to the effects of inflation and due to the opportunity cost of being able to make that money work over the time it takes to receive it) as well as because of the phenomenon of people living “from harvest to harvest” even in biblical times.  To delay or deny wages is itself theft from workers, an aspect of theft many employers appear blind to (at least in my experience).

Another aspect of the property rights of workers is revealed in the statement of Paul in 2 Timothy 2:6:  “The hardworking farmer must be the first to partake of the crops.”  What this means is that the first “profits” belong to the workers before they belong to others on down the line (including the companies those workers work for).  It is the farmer (i.e. the workers) who gets the first share before others can profit from it.  This is precisely the opposite view of most companies, who view the workers as “overhead” and as the last people to receive benefits after the shareholders, who have not even worked for their profits, have gotten their cut, except in those few godly companies where the employees themselves are the owners.  As the rest of the passage in 2 Timothy 2:1-13 makes plain, it is diligent labor that will be rewarded for God, every man receiving the wages of his own righteous work in the faith.  As it is true with regards to spiritual labor, so it ought to be in the physical world with regards to the profit due to workers.

There are other property rights that companies routinely deny that belong by right to workers.  For example, intellectual laborers (researchers and the like) have the right to the fruits of their intellectual labor.  They ought to be the owners of their inventions, research, patents, papers, as they were the creators of those things.  Companies claim that they own the fruits of the minds of their employees because they own the equipment the workers work on.  This is invalid, as workers are themselves free and therefore they and their works belong to them, requiring just payment for their labors (see point #1 about wage theft).  There are fair ways to reward companies for building infrastructure for their intellectual workers, including giving the company the right of first refusal to promote or develop the creation, with a licensing agreement between them and the worker ensuring the worker’s profit while the company gets the right to use that invention or market that work so long as they agree to the terms (which may involve permanent payments, even after the employee has left the company).  Additionally, if they refuse, they may lose the right to market that creation to whichever company shows a willingness to license with the worker, without recourse.  Having considered the work “without value” they cannot then turn around and try to profit from it themselves.  These sorts of laws would not be difficult to create and enforce so long as there was a proper understanding of the property rights of workers to their own creations.

In closing, though, one might ask why it is important to consider the (often neglected) property rights of workers, young people, and researchers themselves, though.  If property rights do not belong to all, they do not belong by right to any.  By respecting the property rights of those who only one the works of their hands or minds, we show that property rights are to be respected by all and for all, thus removing the threat of property becoming a privilege only belonging to the wealthy, in which case the numerous poor are sure to see it as spoils for confiscation and ruinous taxation.  If the wealthy and powerful seek to protect their own property, they must respect the property rights of those they employ and those they deal with who are vastly less powerful.  There is no more profound or successful way to earn respect than to give it–and that includes the entitlement all have to their own works and their own minds, and the just fruits of their labor.  Since all in fact do own property, whether they realize it or not, all ought to respect it.