he necessities of free markets and economic freedom often underscore the importance of man's ability to own and use property by his own choice. Without the right to property, man would not be able to live and would be forced to live in a reality where the products of his work are disposed by another, thereby turning him into a slave. Property rights are imperative to man's survival and merits considerable weight and discussion.

Property rights are a derivative of the ultimate right: the right to life. In this case, "right to life" means the right of all men to have ownership over their physical bodies and to be free from non-coercive interaction with others.

What exactly does it mean to have property rights? The right to property means the freedom to pursue courses of action towards the obtainment and use of material goods. As philosophers Douglas J. Den Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen have observed, "Since human beings are material entities that require material goods to sustain their existence, the use, creation, and disposal of material things must be permitted."

Therefore, the right to property necessitates two things. First, it means that individuals cannot be prevented from seeking material goods and second, man must be free to use the goods he has noncoercively obtained at his discretion. The freedom to obtain goods, or the "freedom of action", is the physical instantiation of the basic right to life. Thus, the right to property is the execution or acting-out of the right to life. To argue against the right to property is to argue against the right to man's ability to sustain him.

If there were restrictions to the right to proprty, then one must state that one is free to make decisions, but not free to act on them. Man must be able to act on his judgements since the assumption that all actions men take are necessarily life enhancing is false. Man uses his judgments and means of inference to determine what is good or bad for him and without the ability to act, this process can never be determined.

Clearly, if property is necessary for proper survival, then the attack on that property is an attack on man. Rasmussen and Den Uyl contend, "In a very real sense, to steal, to defraud, or to expropriate another's property is to initiate an act of violence against that person." Property is an extension of self and should be treated with identical reverence.

Observe that presently, such respect for property is absent. If a new tax were to be levied, most would view this as a tax on property, not on the person. Or, if someone were to steal the property of another, most would be opposed to the act, but only because they believe theft is against social regulations, not because theft assails human life. To view human life as contained by the human body alone ignores the chief function of property.

Common criticisms against this conception of property often center on citizens possibly owning "too much." Detractors believe in such a system where property rights are held in high-esteem that not only will the poor be marginalized, but that there exists the potential for one person or group of persons to own all wealth. If the first case, the system of adhering to property rights prevents the poor from being hurt by the government, and in the second case, such a thought is logistical reverie. Wealth is not simply transferred, but created. In a free-market system, one has the ability to make money without having to take it from others.

Another element about the right to property (thus resulting in "private property) is that societies that place strong emphasis on the right have the knowledge that they have acted morally responsible and the ability to watch their economies flourish. Economist Milton Friedman believed the value of private property was not only of tremendous importance to the individual, but also for social gains:

The right to property, private property, is man's right. Without it, morality is forfeited and both personal and social prosperity become an unattainable dream.