Changes

:::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}}

:::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}}

*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.

*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.

:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]].  I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion.

:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]].  I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)