The founders considered property to be so important that they figured one of the government’s primary jobs was to protect the property of the people on behalf of the people. John Adams noted that if God made not stealing the property of someone else one of his chief commandments, then the idea of protecting property is one that a government should see as important.

“If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free,” said Adams.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, held a very similar view.

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses,” wrote Madison. “This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

Personal property is, without question, one of the hallmarks of a free society. A thing belonging solely to a singular person and not forcibly shared between multiple people allows one to build their own personhood freely. It is a mark of true independence and is, in a way, an extension of that person’s liberty.

Naturally, the left doesn’t see things that way. Their ultimate goal is to make a society where no one owns anything except the government. However, none but the boldest (and possibly stupid) will say something like that outright. While the left’s mentality has pervaded the mainstream, you’ll still not see a lot of people sign on to giving up their personal belongings to the government so other people can use them. Tell the ardent communist that she has to give up her iPhone or laptop so someone else can use it for a while and you’ll see how communist they actually are.

But the left’s lack of respect for personal property doesn’t stop at wishing to manage it themselves. The more radical leftists believe that property is so unimportant that having it stolen from you by criminals isn’t a big deal. They believe that if you attempt to defend your property from criminals, then you should be punished, not the criminal.

Case in point, democratic socialist and member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Dean Preston, believes that security guards hired to protect businesses and property in San Francisco should have their firearms stripped from them because human life is worth more than the things they steal.

In a video posted to Twitter, Preston announced he’d be pursuing this idea after a security guard shot and killed 24-year-old Banko Brown on April 27. While San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said her office wouldn’t be pressing charges on the security guard, Preston said he will be pursuing legislation to make sure security guards can’t protect property with deadly force anymore.

Today, I’m announcing legislation to limit use of guns by security guards. We must amend local law to prohibit guards from drawing weapons just to protect property. Human life is more important than property. pic.twitter.com/A3KsOp8yTd

— Dean Preston (@DeanPreston) May 9, 2023

This is an incredibly short-sighted move.

For one, removing the ability of people to protect their property with deadly force will only embolden criminals to steal more. Moreover, what would be the point of hiring a security guard if they can hardly do anything to stop the theft of property? On top of that, what would be the point of having a store in San Francisco then?

If people can’t defend their property then there is no freedom in San Francisco. You can’t own anything because it could be taken from you at the drop of a hat. Sure, you could try to use less than deadly force to protect it, but that would wildly increase the chances that you yourself will fall into harm’s way as the thief attempts to defend themselves from you.

Also, they’re a criminal. There’s no guarantee that they won’t use deadly force on you.

And it’s here we see the door opening to another issue.

The willingness to disrespect property isn’t too far away from being willing to disrespect the person. If a thief can claim ownership of the extensions of yourself, then at some point the idea will seep into the minds of some that they can take ownership of you in some ways.

This is an open door for needless violence, murder, and rape. The vast majority of criminals don’t have a code of honor, and the more you embolden them, the further they’ll go in committing evil.

Protecting property is just the beginning of protecting life. In that view, protecting property with deadly force absolutely is justified.

No one should ever be withheld from defending what’s theirs.