Changes

::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]].  This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good.  It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother.  In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]].  This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good.  It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother.  In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent.  Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right.  It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results.  So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one.  A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers.  (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery.  Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.)  Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?

:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent.  Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right.  It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results.  So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one.  A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers.  (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery.  Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.)  Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?{{unsigned|QBeam}}