>Nonsense, non-captialist societies may have been less effective, but they were obviously still engaged in economic activity. There has never been an economic

>Nonsense, non-captialist societies may have been less effective, but they were obviously still engaged in economic activity. There has never been an economic system that has has zero defence for private property rights (in the abstract sense of one having exclusive rights to that which they appropriate from the natural world or receive from another legitimate owner). The soviet union had small privately owned farms. North Korea has black markets that are widely tolerated by authorities. But even at a more basic level, having an exclusive right to the food that the state gives you is an exercise of private property rights. Economic existence would not be possible with zero observance of economic independence between individuals. >That seems like an unnecessarily morbid way to derive the kind of morality you're talking about. (Seriously, we can only have rights because we turned food we owned into our flesh?) I see it in an opposite way. I see property as really our own person. I use the term 'property' because that is better understood. But morally, I think it's more appropriate to see the things we own as an extension of our person, and not as a separate class of matter we call property. >By which you mean, prevent them from withholding resources from other people. Withholding resources you created through your own effort, or acquired through private trade trade, is self-defense in my opinion. I think this is common sense and consistent with how we commonly define rights.