POSTED: No Trespassing!

Judaism also resists the government taking control over more and more of a society because of its commitment to people owning property rather than a society owning property. One of the very few exceptions to this rule was the Jerusalem Temple that was, of course, owned by no individual Jew. Otherwise, much religious emphasis is placed upon people owning property, and much care is exercised to protect people from threats to that ownership.

It should be understood that the Jewish emphasis on private property is a religious manifestation of a people's relationship with their God and the moral law. Along with so many other aspects of Jewish life, this one also is intended to affirm the Genesis account of creation, whose central thesis is that we humans are qualitatively different from animals. No animal owns property. To be sure, many animals exhibit a territorial imperative. For instance, lions and elephants both mark their territories to let others know they claim dominance over that area. However, this is not ownership. Lions do not object to elephants in their territory, and they depend on deer ignoring those border markings. If all animals respected lions' "ownership" of an area and kept out, lunch with the lions would be an unusual event.

The Book of Genesis, however, details the mechanism by which humans can own land. Abraham's purchase of a burial site for Sarah is presented in such detail precisely to familiarize Abraham's descendants with the methodology by which humans can own land. This methodology turned out to be a startlingly novel concept, not only to Ephron and the men of Chet, but also to far more recent nations and races that knew nothing of land ownership by people. Yet Judaism is clear that God's plan for humanity calls for people to own land. This is partially on account of God's desire for us to recognize ourselves to be different creatures from animals, and partially on account of God's desire that we live among one another and interact with one another. Economic interaction and its attendant rewards of wealth are part of God's plan to ensure that the children of God do constantly interact with one another for mutual benefit. Land ownership helps to ensure this dynamic.

--pages 28-29

I'm a sucker for any argument supporting the concept of private property, so I find plenty to like here. However, I'm not sure the authors really nailed these concepts like they did others. For example, exactly how does land ownership "ensure that the children of god do constantly interact with another for mutual benefit"? Mind you, I think it probably does, but the means are not obvious. In fact, when I own land, I want to protect it and enhance its value and productivity. So I will fence it, fight erosion, plant valuable and/or beneficial crops, trees and plants, attempt to cultivate the right conditions for suitable wildlife, and try to prevent pollution and corruption of the property, either from my own sources or from neighboring sources. If I'm smart, I will also cultivate good relationships with my neighboring landowners, cooperating with them whenever possible and imposing on their good will as little as possible. So, it's a good argument, but the authors didn't really spell it out.

The point about animals not owning land is a little forced. Sure, the lion doesn't exclude deer from his territory. But many (if not most) humans don't exclude deer or other non-harmful animals from their property either. To be sure, there are exceptions -- people go to great lengths to exclude deer, squirrels, insects, dogs, rats and rabbits where these animals are pests because of their tendency to eat ornamental flowers and shrubs, garden produce, and automobile wiring (take my word for it!). Plus some of them dig ugly holes in places where holes aren't needed. So point taken, but it just seems like they are straining a bit to push the human/animal distinction here.