Welcome to part 6 of my series attempting to answer Bob Murphy's "Tough Questions for Libertarians". A description of this project can be found here: #458128.

Would the God of the Bible own everything, since he created it, and doesn't that make it impossible for him to be a tyrant?

Here's the clip from Bob's show that explains this question: https://fountain.fm/clip/2ibZPbXWgP7FuoYhrEbc.

This question is aimed at atheist (antitheist?) libertarians who claim that not only does god not exist, but it's good he doesn't because he's tyrannical.

Bob is first asking if the God of the Bible would be the owner of everything, according to standard libertarian homesteading theory, by virtue of having created it. Then, if so, he's asking how it makes sense to consider the legitimate owner of property a tyrant for how he uses said property.

No, God wouldn't own everything. In the same way that we don't own our adult children, God would not own us.

Would God own everything else, though? Initially, sure.

A couple of issues immediately present themselves:

If God gifted the Earth to humanity in some way, then obviously case closed. If the earth was made for our use, then that's as good as a gift, even if there's no explicit title transfer. Since, the gift was made prior to us existing, I don't think any conditions on how we use it would be binding, as we never had an opportunity to agree.

There are many libertarian thought experiments that revolve around putting people in perilous situations. The general conclusion reached is that if you put someone in a perilous situation, you incur an obligation to save them. So, if God brought us into existence on his planet and we need that planet to survive, he has an incurred an obligation to at least allow us to use it enough to survive. In libertarianism, right to use is tantamount to ownership (exclusive right to control).

There are implicit contracts in libertarianism. God is omniscient and omnipotent, so if we were using his stuff in a way he objected to, he's had plenty of time to inform us. Absent such a notice, it's reasonable for us to infer that the way we're using it is approved of. One of the ways we're using the Earth is to transfer ownership of chunks of it from one person to another.

The word tyrant, just means an absolute ruler. It also carries a context of unfairness and cruelty. All of those things could be true of a legitimate property owner. You might say that it's not possible to be unfair in how you choose to use your own property, but I think that's a category error. Fairness is an ethical concept whereas ownership is a legal concept.

I confess to being about as secular of a person as there is. I'm not particularly well-versed in the biblical account, so I hope more knowledgeable readers will correct any errors or misconceptions I have.

I also will say that I thought this was a silly question from Bob and really not as "tough" as he might have thought, unless I'm missing something.