Property Rights Debate

Lack of private property doesn't need enforcing, it's the existence of private property that needs enforcing

in other words property doesn't exist because government grants it, government exists because everyone agrees its better than personally defending their property

Until you have a property system there is no "other people's" stuff.

Your property rights are secured by the government you live under. The government you live in doesn't exist without the consent of the governed (unless you live in one of the many autocracies/despotisms/theocracies/etc. in the world). "Allowing" is the correct word.

That's just might makes right, there's no property there since you can take what you want.Property implies you use the state (an external entity) to enforce your rights, providing checks on individual power, not that you enforce it yourself.

Historically a lot of property was forcefully removed from their owners, and it was such a success that it became one of the foundations of modern societies. Slaves for instance were property until societies decided that human rights take precedent to property rights. Also laws don't govern natural order, just how societies of humans want to function, so if they decide they want to prioritize one over the other it's their right. With all that in mind, I can definitely see the world whe

The right to live and to have property that was legally acquired. Otherwise is just a new form of feudalism.

You can just say property. No judgement here. Property rights form the basis of society.

You’ve never understood the concept of property rights?

People don't have rights over others private property that's the of the basis of human rights.