If you wish to guarantee the right to freedom of speech, to a free press, or even the right to be free from slavery, you must guarantee the right to private property to protect those rights. If there is no private property, then the government has the ability to determine who may say something and therefore to censor anybody who opposes the government. The government will only permit those who support it to write in a newspaper.
And, without property rights, what is preventing the government from making everybody into its slaves to do with as they wish?
It is clearly obvious that so-called "human rights" depend upon property rights in order to exist. The Soviet Union's citizens had alot of rights, including the right to free speech according to the Soviet Constitution, but everybody knows they didn't actually have any rights. So, why are liberals such opponents of property rights, especially when it is impossible to protect "human rights" without private property?
2007-11-12
15:23:30
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics