Both biblical principle and prudence indicate that this dilemma is best resolved by tightening up the understanding of private property and its attendant rights and responsibilities rather than by transferring such rights and responsibilities increasingly to the state - the latter being the choice of many theorists and courts. Furthermore, I cannot help thinking that the current crisis in the courtroom cannot be overcome until Americans learn to trust anew in the loving providence of God and so accept most of life's inevitable suffering as from His gracious hand rather than thinking all of it must be blamed on someone else who must make restitution. It will come as no surprise now that I suggest that planning and control of resources should, except perhaps under the extremities of war, be left to the owners of the resources, within the limits of biblical moral law. There is simply no biblical justification for the civil government's attempting to control the use of private property, including natural resources, beyond those limits. Making this work is not always simple.
Problems arise in which property rights are difficult to define and determine.
Ownership of water in aquifers or running streams or rivers, for example, is difficult to define, as is ownership of lakes, oceans, and the atmosphere. In some instances, it seems that the state, acting on behalf of its citizens, must take on the role of owner of some such resources. In those instances, however, the state must function as nearly as possible the way private persons function as owners of property. If it fails to enforce its own property rights vigorously enough, its citizens will suffer loss due to abuse. If it exercises too vigorous control over the resources of which it asserts stewardship, its citizens may be deprived of considerable economic advantage and production.