What does the Bible say about Property rights?

Property rights are at the core of libertarianism. Very simply: You own your body and property, and can do as you please so long as you don't initiate aggression on another's person or property.

If you know anything about libertarians, you'll know that seldom do they agree on 100% of the implications of this principle. This makes for fun and interesting discussions, if you're into this kind of thing. However, most of us agree on the core ideas. So, it got me thinking: what does the Bible say about property rights?

Let me preface this by saying that I'm no Biblical scholar. I'm just a regular dude who loves Christ and Liberty. I've read the entire Bible YEARS ago, but now that I have a radically different political/social perspective, reading it through this lens is a lot more interesting. So, these are just simple observations I've picked up during my recent readings.

2 Timothy 4:13 (NLT) "When you come, be sure to bring the coat I left with Carpus at Troas. Also, bring my books and especially my papers."

I found this entertaining to read and honestly amusing its even in the Bible! Obviously, this establishes that Paul owned some books/papers and a coat. This example is simple enough.

2 Timothy 2:6 (NLT) "And hardworking farmers should be the first to enjoy the fruit of their labor". This seems obvious enough too, and most people would think is "fair". However, this verse seems to leave open the argument that "non-hardworking farmers" (or possibly others) can enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor. But there are many other references to the concept of "you reap what you sow". (Although this is typically of a spiritual nature)

Acts 2:44-45 (NLT) "And all the believers met together in one place and shared everything they had. They sold their property and possessions and shared the money with those in need."

I've seen this passage used by those advocating for some version of socialism. However, "selling their property" implies they owned it to begin with. Nobody else had a right or claim to that property. By establishing an adherence to property rights, it negates the claim that other people are "owed" a portion of this property. This was a voluntary agreement for both parties in the transaction. The act of "sharing the money with those in need" is yet another voluntary decision. There is no coercion anywhere to be found. If a group voluntarily agrees to share their belongings with others, this does not conflict with property rights. The key word is voluntary. There should be no coercion, no threat of violence, by either the state or the community. The communal living mentioned here is not in violation of property rights. In fact, I would love to see many different theories of society put into practice to see which system would flourish in absence of a state.

I'm sure there are plenty of other verses I excluded here. Feel free to add your own or give me your thoughts on any of this.