Skip to main content

Thou Shalt Not Covet – A New Perspective


Traditionally, we look at the Judeo-Christian commandment “Thou shalt not covet” as an injunction against wanting what other people have. But it can also apply to how what other people have affects the value of our possessions.

“Thou shalt not covet.” This basic part of the Ten Commandments means that we should not crave what other people have. In a day and age where some people have a lot more than we do, it is easy to consume our lives with wanting others’ possessions—the fast and beautiful automobile, the luxurious home, frequent nights out at the finest restaurants, cabins and condominiums in the mountains, and season tickets to professional sporting events are some of the items on my covet list.

But there is a different form of coveting that we don’t often recognize as such. This consists of not wanting other people to have what they have, because their possessions may detract from the value of ours. The problem is compounded in our eyes when our possessions are leveraged to the bursting point with our own mortgages.

It is very common for home owners to wish to limit the kinds of homes that can be built around them. This is often accomplished through zoning laws, which exclude others from building homes around us that would reduce the value of our home. It is fairly common for homeowners to complain to local government when someone plans to bring a mobile or prefabricated home onto the property next door or across the street.

We covet what we think we can change, while we ignore what we can’t. Government is involved in both.

Interestingly when government takes away the value of our homes, we either don’t understand that the process is occurring or we feel impotent to stop it. When government transforms a country lane into a thoroughfare, homes suddenly on the edge of dense traffic lose a great deal of resale value. When government takes homes and properties by eminent domain for non-public purposes or for less than fair-market value, most of its victims feel powerless in the face of the juggernaut. When government policies reduce the standard of living, a sudden glut of homes for sale reduces the value for which we can sell our homes.

When government ‘does it’ to us, we often feel powerless to complain, but when we feel slighted by our neighbors, not only do we covet what they have, we turn to government to ensure the short-term fruits of our coveting. Our coveting enshrines improper government practices, and we become much less neighborly in the process.

The recipe for general reduction and avoidance of coveting contains the following ingredients

  • Living within our means, both as relates to our purchasing power as well as to our real sustenance needs, sharing with others the means that we have left over.
  • Being satisfied with what we have relative to what other people have when they have come by it through lawful means, and pressing for legal remedies when others have acquired possessions illegally
  • Ensuring that government fulfills its proper role, both in the compensation for value lost through takings for public purposes, and in not taking properties for non-public uses
If we’re okay with what other people have acquired fairly, regardless if it is more or less than what we have, and if government contributes to the fairness and predictability of what everyone has, life is a lot more enjoyable among our new-found community of neighbors.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...