The radical natural law and natural rights theorist of the 19th century, Lysander Spooner, has the following to say on the right of private property in his 1855 writing, "The Law of Intellectual Property; or an Essay on Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in Their Ideas:"
"The Right of property is simply the right of dominion. It is the right, which one man has, as against all other men, to the exclusive control, dominion, use, and enjoyment of any particular thing. The principle of property is, that a thing belongs to one man, and not to another-mine, and thine, and his, are the terms that convey the idea of property. Others have no right to take it from him, against his will; nor to impede, nor obstruct him in the exercise of such dominion over it, as he chooses to exercise. The legal idea of property, then, is that one thing belongs to one man, and another thing to another man; and that neither of these persons have a right to any voice in the control of disposal of what belongs to the other; that each is the sole lord of what is his own; that he is its sovereign; and has a right to use, enjoy, and dispose of it, at his pleasure, without giving any account, or being under any responsibility, to others, for his manner of using, enjoying, or disposing of it. This right of property, which each man has, to what is his own, is a right, not merely against any one single individual, but it is a right against all other individuals, singly and collectively. It is a right against the whole world. The thing is his, and is not the world's. And the world must leave it alone, or it does him a wrong; commits a trespass, or a robbery, against him. It the whole world, or any one of the world, desire anything that is an individual's, they must obtain his free consent to part with it, by such inducements as they can offer him. If they can offer him no inducements, sufficient to procure his free consent to part with it, they must leave him in the quiet enjoyment of what is his own. The only limitation, which any or all others have a right to impose upon his use and disposal of it, is, that he shall not so use it as to invade, infringe, or impair the equal supremacy, dominion, and control of others, over what is their own."
Property belongs to the owner, and no one else, except of course the Creator. The Creator created all there is in the world, with His own hands, therefore everything truly belongs to him, and we are merely stewards over what the Creator has created for us and freely given to us to use and enjoy. But the Creator would never arbitrarily confiscate private property from the owners, because the Creator never goes back on His promises and gifts to mankind. Rather, it is always us, the stewards, the imperfect human beings, who voluntarily give up or loose our property via our own stupid, selfish, greedy, and often statutorily and principally unlawful actions, viz violating the rights of others. Private property rights are thus absolute, in as much as the right is considered with regards to humanity alone, except the case where the owner violates the true natural and civil rights of others. No human being may violate the rights of property of another human being, without due process of law. I will not suppose to say what the Creator, omnipotent and omniscient as He is, can or can't do, although reason can help an individual guess what the Creator will or will not do/would or would not do, based on His past, unchanging actions and His known attributes, such as justice, equality, and mercy. I therefore hazard a guess that the Creator would never arbitrarily confiscate the private property of someone, unless by due process of law. We are charged by the Creator to voluntarily take care of the poor and needy by voluntarily imparting of our substance, our property, to them. We have this moral duty, this commandment, if you will, to do so. But would the Creator confiscate our property if we did not do this? I think it all depends on whether the use of one's property would violate the rights of others, specifically when such an instance involves monopoly of property and substance by one or a few individuals, while the rest of mankind has their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness violated because those holding the monopoly of property will not impart of their substance to the poor and needy, and the poor and needy have no other means of acquiring property through their labor and inducements to the owners because their is no other property left to acquire, given the monopoly on property by the owner(s). And even then, I think the Creator would let man dot he confiscating, via due process of law. I think this would be the only situation the Creator would ever confiscate property from the owner or would condone mankind to confiscate property from the owner, and justly so because the monopolistic owner was in violation of the rights of others in monopolizing all property and in depriving others, who have nothing, of his excess of substance. Thus, aristocracy and monarchy, where the one or the few are the owners of the realm is looked down upon as evil by the the Creator and enlightened mankind. The same goes for the many that own property to the exclusion of the few, where the rights of the few are violated in that they are physically, and possibly lawfully barred from ACQUIRING property by their own sweat and labor, physically in that all the property is owned by the many and their is nothing left for the few to acquire, and is not imparted to the few via inducements from the poor, or if inducements are not in existence, then imparting to the poor as a freewill gift by the owner. It must be remembered that even those who have absolutely nothing to offer as inducements for buying property do not have a claim on the property of others, except when their rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are violated. But the property may be justly confiscated by the governing body of the society from the owner(s) if the actions of the property owners violate the rights of others to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, including property. And such confiscation must come through due process of law. But such as case as described above concerning a monopoly on all property, both landed and personal, is so rare, so unthinkable, and has yet to happen in America, in the very least, that such is not necessary to comment on any further. Thus, society can only ever have a claim on the property of others when the owner violates the rights of others, such as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and is found guilty of doing so by due process of law. And even then, such property is to be distributed equally among those who have no property but are willing to labor to acquire property is property existed for them to acquire. And in America, as in the whole world, there is property enough for all of mankind to acquire by individual labor, and this will ever be so, so long as a monopolistic individual, group of individuals, or a nation has not claimed it all to the exclusion of all others.
Indeed, it seems to me that the principles found in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) and Katzenbach v. McClung, (1964) allow the government to violate the 5th, 14th, and 9th Amendment rights, particularly the substantive due process rights of the American people in the following ways:
There is a legal doctrine called Substantive Due Process, and I believe the substantive due process rights of Americans are violated by the principals laid down in the two aforementioned Supreme Court cases and in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where the government may force a person to dispose of his/her private property to whomever the government sees fit and whenever the government sees fit (in this case, people of different skin colors, race, age, gender, etc.), under the guise of promoting interstate commerce or protecting interstate commerce. I do not believe promoting or protecting interstate commerce is justification enough for violating the property rights of individuals, for it makes us less secure in our private property at the hands of the government, and it makes our right to acquire private property and be secure in maintaining and holding it less secure as well, again at the hands of the government. If a private individual sought to force me by coercion or duress to dispose of my private property to someone or at a time I as the owner did not see fit, even for good purposes, such as promoting or protecting interstate commerce or helping another person in need, this would be a crime and seen as immoral and illegal, theft, if you will. And if so, then why should the government be allowed to do it? If it's a crime for a private individual, it should be a crime for the government to commit the same act. Government cannot exempt itself from the laws of the land.