[Lukeas14]

He's not arguing whether or not we should have property rights. The question is which is more important, property rights or human rights. There are times when these rights clash and we as a society have to pick one or the other.

For example, if a huge natural disaster (like hurricane Katrina) wipes out the livelihood of millions of people and the government hasn't provided aid yet. Should a person who is hungry and lost everything be able to go inside a store and take food? He has a human right to live but that store also has property rights over their products. Some (not all) conservatives would argue that the hungry person should be prosecuted for stealing, while most people on the left would argue the opposite.

[valuearb]

He is arguing over whether we should have property rights because he apparently doesn’t believe it.

And your convoluted and unlikely analogy fails because you can’t describe why this person should be allowed to steal food others are willing to pay for. Paying for food allows the store to stock more food to feed far more people, stealing the food forces the store to stop selling food.

Why isn’t the government buying food to distribute to people in need without destroying private businesses?

If I believe in property rights and using government to distribute food to the needy, am I a lefty or a righty? Or is there some other label to demonize me with because I don’t believe all of the exact same things as you and the author?